Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive 1

WHERE DID HE GO TO HIGH SCHOOL ON LONG ISLAND??

Disclaimer - I'm a fan of Paul Krugman and used to attend his lectures when he was at MIT. But we don't need to get down to the vitriolic details, even though I do remember a time when he actually had time to answer his mail.

Hi Stirling, just curious, why did you delete this text:

He has hired an assistant to delete the massive barrage of hate email he receives every day on his computer.

He said as much himself in an interview some months ago.

BTW, it would be most helpful if you could sign your posts. Just type in four tildes at the end of your message and the system automatically enters your name and a date stamp. Thanks. -- Viajero 13:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Getting hate email is part of the business these days. Krugman isn't unique in this respect. While he is a lightening rod, it's not in context, and some how implies that many of the other contemporary figures here aren't in the same boat to one degree or another

Given a limited amount of a reader's attention span, it could be better served by talking about his move to simpler models, his ideas on currency exchange rates, central banking - or a summary of his critique of the Executive in The Great Unravelling. Petty details are, well, petty.

Stirling Newberry 16:28, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Link to conservative blog

The "Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid" link is to a right-wing blog that attacks Krugman, but also attacks the New York Times news coverage in general (including photo captions, which I don't think Krugman writes), the Times's use of section 338 of the tax code in connection with a recent stock purchaase (Krugman also doesn't handle the paper's accounting), and some completely unrelated favorite right-wing targets, like George Soros. There's no reason to link this blog here. The article on George W. Bush doesn't link to every left-wing blog that criticizes Bush. JamesMLane 20:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this article link to every right-wing blog that criticizes Krugman, either. Luskin of late has been doing critical analysis on almost every Krugman column, has gone on TV to criticize Krugman, and has also been interviewed about the "stalking" accusation. There are a bunch of Krugman-related or pro-Krugman links in that section, so what's wrong with having 2 anti-Krugman links for balance? Ellsworth 22:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including criticisms of Krugman. I haven't touched the "Truth Squad" link. But the "Conspiracy" site is not a site about Krugman. Luskin writes about Krugman but also about many other topics. Furthermore, it's a blog, so it changes more than most websites. If a reader clicks on that link next month, he or she might be looking at a page that's full of denunciations of the UN or Hillary Clinton or whatever, with nothing about Krugman except in the archives. We generally don't link to blogs. (With regard to Bush, I thought we had gotten rid of all the blog links, but I see that one was smuggled in under the heading "Official and news links". I've now removed it. I shouldn't have said that we don't link to every left-wing blog that criticizes Bush; in general, I see no reason to link to any of them.) JamesMLane 23:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, the Luskin article contains a link to his blog, and if the reader of the Krugman article is interested in Luskin's criticism, then the reader would be able to access the Luskin blog from the Luskin article. So I will not put the Luskin blog link back in this article, it's not worth getting in a revert war over. I reserve judgment on whether we wiki-editors "generally don't link to blogs". Peace. Ellsworth 00:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A link to Luskin's blog from the article about Luskin is entirely appropriate. It seems to me that the link should make clear that it's to the blog, not something about the work-in-progress book of the same title, given that both are mentioned in the Donald Luskin article, but I'll let the Luskinites worry about that. JamesMLane 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I labelled it. Ellsworth 15:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah, Krugman actually majored in History as an undergraduate, not economics. just letting y'all know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.67.55 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 March 2005

Link to Krugman Truth Squad

This external link led to a Cafepress site of the National Review full of Krugman Truth Squad merchanside, which is obviously an inapproriate link and the fact that it is basically advertising makes me question the intentions of the original editor. This is not politically motivated; if anyone finds a link to an actual KTS site, I would have no problems with that being there, but I think you all will agree with me that the link to the Cafepress store was inappropriate. --BDD 23:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

When I read this article the only mention of Donald Luskin was to say he also works with Kudlow at NRO. There is no reason to mention this unless Luskin is mentioned latter on in the article, which he was not, so I removed the mention of his name from the article. Some brief mention of Luskin and his blog might be warranted as he is probably Krugman's most persistent, but I'll leave that up to someone else. I actually think this article is pretty darn good and fair (and I am NOT a Krugman fan). --209.117.148.2 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotations, not quotes

I'm changing the section heading back to "quotations". Many people use "quote" as a noun, but there are also many people who consider this usage substandard, especially in formal writing. [1] Everyone agrees that "quotation" is acceptable, so we might as well use that. JamesMLane 15:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

New York Times editor admitted this year Krugman is inaccurate

i just read the article and i couldn't believe that it wasn't mentioned how Krugman got called out by his own editor in the New York Times for being inaccurate. Wiki articles are supposed to present a complete picture and this is something that is definitely noteworthy and significant enough to mention. especially if the article is going to say something overly simplistic such as he is only criticized because he is "willing to address controverstial issues", gmab.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RonMexico (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 November 2005

Daniel Okrent wasn't Krugman's editor. See below. Please sign your posts.--RattBoy 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Well-known critics of Krugman..."

A few points: I don't see why this passage is included under the biography heading. In fact, this section needs to broken off from the discussion of Krugman's views and the latter expanded. If I can find the time, I'll do it; if somebody with more time wants to take a crack at it, by all means go ahead. As for the passge itself, I'm not convinced an account of a television stunt involving a balloon has much expository value. Criticism of Krugman, which in an expanded and cleaned-up version of this article probably deserves its own heading, ought to be thoughtful and substantive or it ought to be turfed. This passage should be. The exchange with Bill O'Reilly is likewise of dubious value. If it's supposed to illustrate Krugman's credentials as a quipster-pundit, then it ought to be moved to the quotations section. If not, as it fails to contribute anything substantive, it ought to be dumped as irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrburke (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 December 2005

I agree. Although Krugman is pretty mainline as an economist, he is highly controversial as a pundit and this section is inadequate. I don't think Kudlow, Cramer, and O'Reilley are necessarily the best examples of his critics. WBcoleman 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The mention of Mad Money theatrics by James Cramer (i.e. bobblehead dismemberment) and O'Reilly show shouting contests are not worthy of inclusion in an academic article as sources of economic criticisms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimer Duke (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 July 2006

Some of these incidents have received significant media coverage and are worthy of inclusion on that basis. Gamaliel 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cramer voodooing Krugman as a 'bubble head'" has received significant media coverage? GMAFB. And as such merits attention as worthy criticism. I suppose Leno's regular inclusion of Bush in his Tonight Show monologue merits inclusion in a political discussion of Bush.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimer Duke (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 July 2006

Then remove that particular portion, but not the entire section.

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

^ WOW -- is that all it takes? 199.214.26.118 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) yup.

By experimenting, I found out that ALSO you can display:

-only the time+date with 5 tildes: 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

-only the username/IP address with 3 tildes: 199.214.26.118

(but 2 ~~ or 1 ~~ does nothing.)

I guess reading the how-to-edit pages would tell you this ;)

Liberal tag

I've reverted several edits now by someone using only various IP addresses with no other contributions to the introduction of the Krugman article. Krugman calls himself a "liberal" - here is a link to his latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8944807-6086069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185974016&sr=8-1

Can we have some sort of consensus as to whether it is OK to refer to him as a "liberal" in the article itself? To me, it just seems factually accurate, neither pejorative nor praise. Apparent public relationship 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Krugman (and Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's be because the pro-Bush commentators you cited are so often factually incorrect (as opposed to the "liberal" columnists that you mentioned)? In any case, the first sentence of the second 'graph of the Krugman article reads:

Krugman is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies.

So it's not exactly like the article keeps Krugman's politics secret. Same thing for Molly Ivins; her liberalism comes up early in the second 'graph. But if you feel that "liberal" will act as a pejorative word and you feel that you must therefore add it to the first graph of these articles, no one's stopping you from adding it. You may get reverted, of course, especially for those folks who are simply reality-based rather than particularly conservative or liberal.

Atlant 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

it is kind odd. Atlant- why do you regard "liberal" as a pejorative but not "conservative"? Krugman's work is full of factual errors, as was confirmed by his boss, Daniel Okrent. what do the amount of errors in someone's work have to do with where someone stands on the ideological spectrum? RonMexico 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Okrent was never Paul Krugman's boss. Further, his parting shot at Krugman was roundly criticized, as it contained no specifics to back up his assertions. If he had a problem with Krugman's use of data, he had had ample opportunity to level his criticism (with specifics and outlining his entire argument) during his 18 months' tenure as the Times' Public Editor. Generally refusing to dignify the cheap personal attacks that Okrent leveled at him, Krugman effectively refuted Okrent's hasty analysis on the substance.[2], [3]

Despite his shoddy scholarship and inappropriate cheap shot, Okrent can always be proud that he invented Rotisserie League Baseball, thus giving hero-worshipping nerds yet another reason to sit on their ever-enlarging posteriors and evade any opportunity to actually get outside and exercise.

I think it's time to add some context to Okrent's shallow and cowardly criticism of Krugman.--RattBoy 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't regard "liberal" as pejorative. I'm proud of being a liberal; we're the folks who brought you Social Security, the 40-hour work week, the vote for women and racial minorities, etc. But conservatives seem to think it's some kind of insult, and their heroes (like Coulter and Limbaugh) routinely say the word with a sneer.

Atlant 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

if you're proud of it than why do you object to the word "liberal" being used? i don't see any problem with using the words "conservative" and "liberal" in wiki articles. RonMexico 16:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object, but I have pointed out that the article makes his politics clear by the second 'graph. We don't need redundancy. Look, you think it's a good idea, make the change. See if you get reverted.

Atlant 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. i'm going to leave it, if that other guy wants to change it, so be it. RonMexico 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that I started. I, for one, regard the words "liberal" and "conservative" as descriptive, not perjorative. I find it odd that conservatives, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, are invariably labelled as such, while liberals are not. I don't want to get involved in a bunch of edit/revert wars, but I think we should be consistant. WBcoleman 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Krugman (and Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this?" I agree with this. Bcem2 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the two groups aren't really analogous. A better example of a liberal version of those guys would be Al Franken. Also, Molly Ivins is, in fact, labeled as a liberal; however, Bill O'Reilly is not labeled as a conservative in the intro (though there's a mention of conservative ties in paragraph two). I just don't think putting liberal in the intro does Krugman justice. He's more nuanced than that. If you wanted to call Jon Stewart liberal, though, I wouldn't object. Andre (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Krugman not a liberal - ok, how bout a raging leftist?Incorrect 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Originally, the word liberal referred to people who believe in liberty. Outside of the U.S. this is still what the word means. Calling an egalitarian economist "liberal" may confuse some non-American readers. Based on the classic definition, Milton Friedman was a liberal, not Krugman. Friedman even takes claim to the liberal label in Capitalism and Freedom. --JHP 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a history major

Actually, though I believe his first interest was history, he did major in economics.

Roy Harmon 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Krugman is a Hack

Take a look at http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp, Donald Luskin's weblogue - you'll see by actual quotes that Krugman manipulates data, quotes incorrectly, and generally exhibits the most dishonest behavior to try and prove his point. I guess since he gave up on winning the Nobel, he's settled for Nixonian dirty tricks. Note my edit to the controversy section.63.205.151.68 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Great article

What a great article by the way. I checked if Wikipedia happened to have something about this guy Paul Krugman, whose column I came across, but whom I had never heard about before... And, well, this taught me everything I needed to know in a clear and concise way. -- Jonik 21:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MIT

If one does a Google search for Krugman, the first result is "Krugman's Official Web Page" which is located at an MIT domain; does Krugman now teach at MIT and no longer at Princeton? 71.76.135.102 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Krugman used to be at MIT, but is now at Princeton. --Kristjan Wager 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lying In Ponds Website as Reference

I propose to remove this sentence from the article: "A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [3] cited political partisanship data compiled by blogger Ken Waight [4], which shows that since the year 2000 Krugman has been arguably the most partisan newspaper columnist in America and almost certainly the columnist most uniformly supportive of the Democratic Party." I would rephrase a subsequent sentence to identify the Economist article on another point. I think there is a double sleight of hand in this sentence. First it launders the info from the blogger's website through the Economist in a sneaky way. I do not know if this qualifies as meeting Wikipedia guideline of using reliable sources. Secondly it goes out on its own to express that PK is the most partisan and the most uniformly supportive of the Democratic Party. If you go look at the website, it says that PK is the third-most partisan "Democratic" columnist, and there are fully five other columnists with more frequent positive Democrat references in the current data table there.

It struck me as funny when I read the article text because I never much considered Krugman as supporting Democrats so much as hammering President Bush's policies and by extension I suppose Republican policies. DanielM 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose your removal of the sentence (you did more than propose to remove it...you went ahead and did it). It "laundered" nothing, it stated a fact: Economist mag cited Waight's data. Waight's data is very thoroughly documented and reliable; just because he's a blogger doesn't mean what he does is wrong. I would consider Waight far more reliable than an unsigned column from the Economist, frankly. Waight writes himself in the linked post that Krugman was the most partisan Democratic columnist since he started compiling data, which is exactly what the previous statement stated. In a two-party system, opposition to the Republicans unbalanced by opposition to Democrats IS support of the Democrats; this is exactly Waight's point and he argues persuasively for it in his methodology.

For those reasons I believe your change should be reverted -- but I won't do it myself. --Jjb 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I waited more than a full day for comments before I made the change. I couldn't reasonably be expected to wait for your or anyone else's personal approval or disapproval five days down the road. In my opinion the previous didn't state a fact at all, although it sort of looked like it did. The text conflated three things: what the Economist said, what the Lying in Ponds website said, and the editor's interpretation of what the Lying in Ponds data "showed." The opinion that constitutes the reference said he was the most partisan "Democratic-leaning" pundit however the editor's interpretation was "arguably the most partisan columnist in America." IMO something was lost in translation there. I'm not against bloggers, but the Wikipedia guideline says "...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise..." Okay, so does Waight meet the exception? No, according to his website he's a research meteorologist, so analysis of pundit partisanship is out of his field of expertise. Your last statement that opposition to Republicans equates to support for Democrats in a two party system... well this sounds a bit like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" to me. I disagree with it. I think there are assumptions in this line of argument and that there may be logical problems with it, additionally there are independents in the US government: Sen. Jeffords is one, and I think there may be more in the House. But all this aside, I took care to leave the Lying in Ponds reference in there, with text that is more straightforward and more defensible and more current. DanielM 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing pundit partisanship isn't rocket science; I agree that it's not Waight's professional field, but people are not typically one-dimensional. (Krugman, as we all know, is an economist specializing in international trade; he has no professional expertise in American politics.) Waight has built a publicly available and verifiable database, and he doesn't make extreme claims; he simply points out that the data shows Krugman is extremely pro-Democrat. (If Waight wanted to get his work published, I have little doubt he could get into a lower-tier journal such as Econ Journal Watch.)

The Waight/Economist criticism of Krugman comes not because of his "high profile" or that he "skewers" Republican policies. It's not too hard to read between the lines of the trying-very-hard-to-be-polite Economist piece: what it's saying is not that Krugman is bad for being a famous Democrat, but that he's cashing in on his academic credentials to do it, twisting science to promote his political agenda -- and for such a serious criticism to get into the Economist, it isn't like this is one or two people saying it.

The watering-down of this criticism sure fits the pattern of this entry, though. What used to be an accurate criticism from reputable, impartial sources now is being characterized as Republican whining. Now it fits right in with the "criticisms" of Krugman by hack TV presenters like James Cramer and Bill O'Reilly, which seem pretty obviously to have been added by Krugman fans in order to suggest that his critics are beneath serious consideration. --Jjb 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that Waight doesn't meet the Wikipedia guideline for a reliable source. I still disagree with you that criticizing one party is the same thing as supporting the other. In the case of Daniel Okrent I agreed with you that his criticism was watered down, so I took out the watering down part. I hope this doesn't antagonize the editor who put it in, because I understand the problems with Okrent's criticism, namely that it came first without examples and in an unorthodox and unbecoming way for an ombudsman, further that when he did provide examples he revealed that they were in large part provided to him by Krugman's online critics who were filling his mailbox (I think Luskin was one), finally that the criticisms were effectively rebutted to the point where Okrent acknowledged he didn't understand one of the concepts involved. However Okrent had the stature of the NYT ombudsman so IMO we should go ahead and report his parting shot as he, well, shot it. The bobblehead text was sort of silly and not serious criticism, so I clipped it. Bill O'Reilly is an extremely prominent media person and his Krugman exchange is funny, so I think it should stay. I think I agree with you that the first sentence of criticism section could be changed, maybe you or another editor will suggest a better intro statement. DanielM 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say your edit "antagonized" me, I emphatically don't agree with your removal of the text which gives context to Okrent's criticism. Sure, Okrent was Public Editor, but as you imply, his criticism was unprofessional and without foundation. My edit did not mention it, but Okrent followed up his "parting shot" column with a stream of invective—it's clear that he had an axe to grind. In the whole exchange, Krugman behaved professionaly; Okrent, not so much. I don't care if Okrent was the Pope; it would be POV for Wikipedia to validate his unprofessional attacks on Krugman by giving him the last word.

I do agree with you about the O'Reilly exchange. It would be a shame if such dialog, which provides an insight into Krugman's combative wit as well as a snapshot of the kind of criticism that he regularly receives, were cut from the article.--RattBoy 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and deleted a blog link before realizing it had been a source of contention. Looking at the rest of the artilce, I have to take serious exception to the repeated use of blogs as sources of criticism. Wikipedia should not provide an echo chamber for what happens in the blogosphere. Policy is clear on this. Blogs are almost never acceptable sources. If there is reliable criticism, i.e. The Economist, by all means make reference to it. Otherwise it has to go. End of story. Given what appears to be general consensus on this in the discussion above, I'm a little surprised that action hasn't been taken on this. --Beaker342 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The character and merit of the blog in question differentiate it from random verbiage any political yahoo might put up. The Lying in Ponds information used to be portrayed here in this article as much more authoritative than now. We've properly identified it "Blogger Ken Wraight says..." and Wikipedia readers can evaluate it from there. We're not using it as an authoritative source for a fact statement. Also, blogs are becoming more, not less, acceptable as sources. Recently Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo blog scooped all the major newspapers on the politically-driven Federal prosecutor firings story. So I don't think we need to purge blog quotes and citations from Wikipedia. We should exercise caution, surely, and have done so here. DanielM 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not all blogs are created equal. However, your sympathy for blogs is not reflected in Wikipedia policy. Consult WP:BLP, which reads, "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." If I read the debate above correctly, the Economist used data from the blog, but we need to be citing the Economist, not the blog, because the Economist is accountable for what it publishes. The blog is not. The ban on using blog sources is even more stringent for BLP, as is the case here. --Beaker342 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's talking about using blogs as sources for fact statements, isn't it? It's not saying "thou shalt never utter the words of a blog." We're not saying "Paul Krugman is the #4 most partisan columnist" and then linking the blog as a reference. We're saying "here is this blog using its own methodology and here is what they claim." The reliability or unreliability of the blog is right there for readers to decide on their own. If rapper Kanye West says "Bush doesn't care about black people" we're not going to assert as a statement of fact that Bush doesn't like black people and then link Kanye West as a source. But surely we can say that Kanye West made that statement. We're not enjoined from from referring to that because Kanye is not a well-known professional researcher writing within his field of expertise. DanielM 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't cite it if the only place West said it was in his blog. There are of course countless reliable sources we could use to cite that incident. As for your other point, I don't see how your interpretation squares with the text of WP:RS and WP:BLP. I'll cite BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources." Since blogs are by definition unreliable, they cannot be the basis of criticism.--Beaker342 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we will reach agreement. Not to agree with Lying in Ponds methodology or anything else about it, but the guy there has done some impressive work. It's not right to just forbid anything said by a blog. Reliability is not the means by which something is said, but rather the person or organization saying it, and the content of what is said. What if Walter Kronkite or Marie Curie or Herodotus communicated by blogs? We'd be out of luck! I will not revert if you delete it again, but I hope to hear from some third person. DanielM 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) PS: Thanks for deleting that Shrillblog irrelevance, something totally different.

As I am the editor who first included the Waight data, I don't know if I count as a third person. However, it seems notable to me that DanielM was originally opposed to the inclusion of the reference and has changed his mind to support it. DanielM's arguments against the Wikipedia policy against blog sourcing are, in my view, extremely strong. Waight is actually a founding member of the Media Bloggers Association (he is listed in their sidebar), an organization dedicated to advancing the view that bloggers (and not just corporations) deserve the press protections enshrined in the 1st Amendment. I can't imagine that Wikipedia stands against the MBA on this question.

I would like to reiterate my earlier characterization of the "Criticism" section of this entry: the inclusion of strong, substantive criticisms from reputable critics continues to be opposed vehemently, while weak, ill-conceived attacks from blowhards like Bill O'Reilly are included. This dynamic is, in my view, generating an article that on balance espouses a robustly pro-Krugman POV. A good way to start countering this would be to reintroduce the Waight criticism in a prominent position near the top of the Criticism section. However, I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor and I do realize that, technically, the letter of WP can be construed to rule out the Waight analysis; DanielM, perhaps you feel will empowered by my comments to revert again, and/or maybe you or someone else can take up the broader issue with the WPmakers. Jjb 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that I objected to a sentence and some phrasing and I pointed out Wikipedia cautionary policy about blogs as sources but I was not opposed to the inclusion of the reference. We discussed things in different ways as the text evolved but I believe you are mistaken that I changed my mind. I am not and have never have been in favor of categorically banning blogs as references. Neither do I think they should categorically be regarded as reliable. About six paragraphs up, I talked about how I thought it could be used. DanielM 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Krugman as "shrill", and the "shrill" meme in the blogosphere.

The Shrillblog is not an irrelevance, it's the primary manifestation of the use of "shrill" by figures on the left as a badge of honor, describing what they see a willingness to speak facts that are being suppressed as "impolite" or "overly partisan" (another manifestation of this idea is Stephen Colbert's coinage "reality has a liberal bias"), because they embarrass people on one side of the aisle, rather than conveniently suiting the "reality must be somewhere between the two points of view" mode of many media outlets. Criticism of Krugman on his "shrill" and "partisan" style was widespread for several years -- you practically couldn't hear his name without "shrill" being associated with it. There's a Russell Baker NY Review of Books piece that discusses this, but unfortunately it's archived behind a pay-wall. Auros 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, excuse me for writing that off as irrelevant out of hand. It still seems rather tangential but I will scan around to see the level of association with PK. DanielM 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"krugman shrill" gets 83k hits on Google. And try asking anyone who hangs out in the left blogosphere what name the associate with "shrill", or see if they get the reference behind the word "krugmanomicon", or "shrill, unholy madness" (which, by itself, gets 805 hits right now). I created a Shrillblog entry at one point, but it was deleted while I was away on vacation by some people who took it to be a vanity entry by the author of the blog. I haven't gotten around to getting the deletion reversed. Auros 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good, and thank you for cleaning up the section, but all this begs the question of why what happens in the blogosphere is relevant for our purposes, especially given the strict restrictions Wikipedia places on blogs as sources of criticism, doubly so for WP:BLP. --Beaker342 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BLP, adding emphasis: "blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject". Many sources of the "shrill" criticism are non-bloggy, and the source of the discussion of the conversion is the people involved in that (link to DeLong's self-report, along with his links to Cowen and Northrup). (I actually think this is actually a poor policy, in any case; the blogs of working journalists and academics are, IMHO, only marginally less reliable than news websites.) As for why we should be concerned with the blogosphere itself, it is a significant driver of modern political coverage and punditry. Try searching "libby blog coverage" on Google News; many newspapers, in their post-Scooter-Libby-trial wrap-ups, admitted that much of the best coverage came from livebloggers, and newspapers were in many cases just validating and then duplicating such coverage. Senator James Webb was originally recruited by a blog campaign. Conservative blogs are also quite influential; Tom Daschle was taken down, in part, through the nexus of a conservative blogger starting stories (some with basis in fact, others not) and then having the local papers report on the blogger (breathless "are these allegations true?!" stories). Auros 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it sounds like your dispute is with WP:RS and WP:BLP. We are all well aware that blogs can be influential. No one is denying that. The dispute is whether or not blogs are valid sources of criticism. Policy says they are not, and does not differentiate between "good" blogs (ones authored by generally reliable persons, famous blogs like powerline or dailykos) and "bad" blogs (a blog some dude just started five minutes ago). --Beaker342 02:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're absolutely right, I disagree with the policy -- I think there does need to be a system by which we distinguish "serious" blogs (from Tapped, to The Corner, to The Moderate Voice; I think "famous" doesn't necessarily mean reliable -- e.g. Matt Drudge is certainly famous, but extremely unreliable). In any case, on this particular topic, I don't think the sourcing violates the policy. Auros 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: One can always justify using blogs that make reliable reports of facts, or that, like The Big Picture, provide useful visualizations of publicly-available data, under WP:IAR and WP:UCS... Auros 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Krugman as a political appointee?

I'm removing the line about being a possible appointee, because I know I've heard him in interviews specifically say he's not interested, and I cannot find any references to any candidate (Dean or anyone else) suggesting that they'd try to persuade him otherwise. If you can find actual support for this idea, other than right-wingers suggesting it in order to paint Dean as being ultra-liberal, by association with people's perceptions of Krugman, please link. Auros 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Krugman

It makes no sense to put the fact that he is a distant relative of Martin Krugman in the first paragraph. If anything, it belongs in a "trivia" section, but there is none now, so I am inclined to remove it. Cj67 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Auros 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eeyore?

I've added this to the criticism section:

Describing Krugman's "jeremiads" and calling him "our own academic Eeyore," Paul Greenberg says that "nothing seems to depress this expert like good news. Here the stock market is at an all-time high, the unemployment rate keeps dropping below low, but our expert keeps warning that The End Is Near … this is a guy who lives for a repeat of 1929." (The sound of one man weeping by Paul Greenberg, April 30, 2007)

More from Just One Minute. Asteriks 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to try to quote everything that everyone has said about Krugman. Why should this particular criticism be included? Paul Greenberg isn't a sufficiently prominent spokesperson to have an article about him, and the criticism doesn't seem particularly substantive. JamesMLane t c 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I deleted the line about his status in Bernard Goldberg's book. This is little more than a shill for his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.207.97.7 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Under criticism, why no mention of Krugman shilling for Enron?

Paul Krugman wrote an article PRAISING Enron (while on its advisory board) as the "future of corporations". It's on his archives "pkarchives", though few remember it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.208.34 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2007

Indeed. There IS a brief mention, but it's horribly misleading. Krugman has spent his entire career bashing free markets (why he objects to being called a socialist is beyond me), but the ONE time he found something positive to say about a major corporation, it just happened to be one paying him tens of thousands of dollars? Give me a break. He wrote glowing praise of Enron a year or two before its fall. The section on Enron needs lots of beefing up, and I plan on doing it. An article on Krugman that doesn't elucidate his Enron connection would be comparable to an article on Nixon with 3 sentences on Watergate. It's a joke.Pinkvolkswagen 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is documented evidence in reliable (read nonbloggy) sources of a controversy, it's not a controversy. --Beaker342 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are by definition not reliable? This is insipid. Among the people who have BLOGS in which they've exposed Krugman as essentially a charlatan are Donald Luskin (frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and National Review Online) and Andrew Sullivan (widely read author). The Enron episode was more than just a controversy, it was a definitive exposure of Krugman as a fraud, and no amount of caterwauling by leftist apologists can make it otherwise.Pinkvolkswagen 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Beaker342. You should also note that there's an entire paragraph about Enron in the "Biography" section. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some blogs are better than others. It depends on the case. It seems your problem is more with the placement of the discussion than in the content, as there is already a mention of Enron in the article. Regarding "leftist apologists", please take a few looks at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, especially in regards to giving critics undue weight. I take it to mean that the Enron episode need not take up any more of the article than the few sentences it already does. --Beaker342 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The very title of this section indicates that particular anon editor's anti-Krugman bias. In fact:

1. Krugman is not opposed to free markets. In fact, the problem with Enron is that the company engaged in a long-term campaign to subvert free markets by engaging in monopolistic practices and manipulation designed to artificially create shortages, and by publishing fraudulent annual reports.

2. When writing about Enron, Krugman disclosed his role as a part-time advisor to Enron, as is already noted in the article.

Editors with a vendetta against Krugman should post their rants on the Luskin and Sullivan blogs. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for poorly-sourced, fact-challenged hit pieces.--HughGRex 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling Obama Supporters Cult Like

Manticore55 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)This is not just one blog, but dozens. The man is clearly and blatantly "shilling" for Hillary Clinton and it should be mentioned.

Fine, provide sources that many significant commentators object to Krugman's views on Obama and I withdraw my objections. The section must also be presented in an NPOV manner, which I don't feel your paragraph does. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Provided. Also, my paragraph simply states what the critics state.

I might tweak the language a little bit later, but it works for me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with this - the second link is just a copy of his article (as far as I can tell), and the third link seems to be pro-krugman. So why are they included in "criticism" of his article?76.161.209.27 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Krugman and the Democratic nomination campaign

An anonymous editor added a sentence with an interpolated comment in the article, and left a related message on my talk page. I'm copying both below so that everyone can participate in the discussion. JamesMLane t c 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Added by the anon to the article: Krugman also known as Hillary Clinton's supporter at New York Times, and as a harsh critic of Barack Obama and his campaign staff. Interpolated comment: *** Anybody who disagrees with the sentence above should look at his column and blog at NYTimes first! If it's true that he's ardent critic of the George W., then the above is also true. And I also think that Krugman should not edit this page:) ***

From User talk:JamesMLane: Hi Paul(?), I think it's obvious that recently Krugman's criticism of Obama and support of Hillary has grown to the level of his criticism of George W. Bush (the evidence is overwhelming, check his column/blog, both the volume and content of his recent posts speak for themselves) Thus I think that it became a part of his legacy (I'm sure that he does it consciously) and should be in the first section of the article, as a "warning sign";) Though he may still be a liberal (also I could argue against it - on the same basis - whether liberalism stops at supporting gun-loving, wanna-obliterate-Iran, somewhat (implicitly)racist candidates, but I can live with it) I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really master the English language so your editing is always welcomed, I just wanted to share my opinion before you "undo" my recent contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.247.120 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, but if you want to edit here, you should conform to the standards that the community has developed. One of these is assume good faith. I'm not Paul Krugman, and if you have no evidence that I am, you shouldn't make such insinuations. As for the specific edit, Krugman's criticism of Bush long predates and far outweighs his criticim of Obama. Because he has also criticized Clinton, we would not characterize him as a Clinton supporter, or a "harsh" critic of Obama, without a citation. It's not enough for you to say that anyone who disagrees should go research the point. There's disagreement, so it's up to you to find support before adding the assertion to the article. Furthermore, "support" doesn't mean digging up some Krugman statements that you consider harsh. That would violate our rule against original research. If some prominent spokesperson expresses an opinion, then we can consider it for inclusion. Even then, however, we don't adopt such an opinion (no matter how strong you or anyone else thinks the evidence is), because our core policy is the neutral point of view (NPOV). We would instead report the fact about who holds the opinion. Notice that that's how it done in the paragraph in the article that discusses Krugman's criticisms of Obama. That paragraph would be the appropriate place for any further information that you think the article needs. JamesMLane t c 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

George Stephanopoulos had this to say on Sunday in an interview with Clinton: "Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing." Is he sufficiently prominent? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have to admit that my massage contains regrettable immature elements, many of which you've pointed out:) Nevertheless I disagree with many of your statements and please get off your high horse. I follow Krugman's activities VERY closely. But let's talk about indisputable facts.

You and the article stated - without actually presenting any evidence - that "Krugman's criticism of Bush long predates and far outweighs his criticim of Obama" and (Krugman) "is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy".
Well, I disagree with that. It obviously predates, but we are in a new era where Obama is the "new Bush" (to Krugman), and we have to actualize the content. (actually Krugman's criticism of - for instance - Greespan long predates and outweights his criticism of W. Bush, why not include that too? Honestly, which is more important?)
Proof? Paul Krugman blogs since 2005, please google for the following two terms: "Obama site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com" and "W Bush site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com". The numbers speak for themselves: something like 348 vs. 505 for Obama (slightly vary depending on the used datacenters). Even simply "Bush -Reagan site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com" occurs only 471 times on his blog (which may still include Bush senior, Krugman usually compares/analyzes previous administrations in his posts). So he is slightly obsessed with one of the democratic nominees, at least to the level of his Bush-criticism, at a very important and delicate time for those.
Almost on every single occasion when he "criticizes" Hillary Clinton, by saying something like her plan is "pointless", for instance, he feels the need to add that even if it's true, the subject is almost insignificant compared to others.
So I don't know what kind of evidence do you need, but if you don't consider "characterized Obama supporters as 'cult-like', complained that the media had not given Obama sufficient scrutiny" as an active act of support/criticism, then I'm sorry, but we disagree (support and criticism, and their mesurements, are very subjective, especially at the campaigning time. On the same basis anyone can dispute almost EVERY WORD (epithet) of the article. I can't see too many citations!)
I'll try to find quotes from "prominent spokesperson's the way JCDenton2052 did, but my point is, still, that on some level we have to include Krugman's criticism of Obama, if the article contains that "Krugman is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush..". At least the google-numbers proove that.
My final compromised proposition is that we include, on the same place, what Krugman wrote in his column with references. Both where he went wild on Obama and the likely reason too, his admiration of Hillary's health care plan and criticism of Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.247.120 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Krugman's columns for 2008.[4] I counted 18 critical of George W. Bush, 2 (mildly) critical of Hillary Clinton, 9 critical of John McCain, and 18 critical of Barack Obama. In the articles themselves, he was much more critical of Obama than any of the others. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, guys, let's at least try to see through our partisan glasses. Krugman did indeed support Clinton over Obama, but this hardly implies that he's a Clinton "shill", or that his criticism of Obama has "grown to the level" of Bush. (In any case, any assertions about how strongly he likes or hates anyone are Original Research WP:OR and don't belong.) Also, keep in mind the all-important CONTEXT of these writings: This was at a time when the majority of media pundits strongly supported Obama, including most of the NYTimes' own columnists, and two in particular (Rich and Dowd) who went completely overboard in their Hillary-bashing. Benwing (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilded Age

The article mentions the Gilded Age of the 1920s when discussing 'The Conscience of a Liberal', but this term usually refers to the latter half of the 19th century. If this is a term defined to refer to the 1920s in his book, this should be noted in the article to avoid confusion; otherwise, the term has been incorrectly applied. Either way, something should be changed in that segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.26.230 (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He won the Nobel prize friends, better update this

Actually the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is, per the Nobel prize page, not a "Nobel prize," merely one associated with them. Have emended the page to indicate this, retarget links to redirects, and make this page consistent with the pages above. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Economist's creed

“If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations “I believe in the Principle of Comparative Advantage” and “I believe in Free Trade”.” Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, Cambridge The concept of comparative advantage

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-trade-comparative-advantage.html

This quote is too amazing not to be included. Larklight (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, that quote comes from p.137 of his paper:

"Is Free Trade Passe?" The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 131-144

lk (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Personal Insults

"The journalist James Fallows spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton commerce secretary Jeffrey Garten complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder." "

I don't see how these personal insults are relevant criticism. Perhaps if there were more substantive criticisms by these people then those comments would be appropriate, but I don't see how personal insults, from famous people or otherwise, have any relevance to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.46.227 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i've tried to put this in context.JQ (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Luskin/Okrent

I deleted the stuff about Okrent and Luskin. As the material there explained, Okrent (a non-economist) incorrectly accepted a criticism of Krugman by Luskin (who has no significant economics training, but writes a lot of erroneous stuff about economics). This doesn't seem notable.JQ (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, not to Krugman as an economist, but to Krugman as a columnist (or maybe most to his dual role as economist and columnist), that the public editor criticizes him as playing too freely with his data. The paragraph that was there was too long, though, and I'm not sure how to include it fairly but shorter. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Krugman with NYT since 1999

according to a 2002 Editor & Publisher article about him:

The 49-year-old Krugman — who joined the Times in 1999 — has written for both academic and general-interest publications, authored and edited more than 20 books, and received the American Economic Association's prestigious John Bates Clark Medal in 1991 for his work rethinking international-trade theory. He taught at Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University before becoming a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton in 2000.

— http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003873390

72.244.207.65 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

FYI

Twice in the introductry paragraph the reader is informed that Krugman was awarded the 2008 Nobel prize for Economics. For those with editing priviliges (or the author of the page), it may read better if it is only mentioned once in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography needs organization

Krugman has published so many things that the publication list in his Wiki article is a mess (even though it is nowhere near complete). It would be easier to understand and much more useful if it were categorized. From what I know of his work, I would suggest the categorization below. (Alternative suggestions welcome.) --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Books

Academic publications (authored)

Academic publications (edited)

Economics textbooks

Books for the general public

Articles

Academic articles

Humor

Articles for the general public

Sounds good, just one quick note. In Economics generally academic articles are where the action's at and books less so. So if you want to emphasize Krugman-the-economic-economists, articles should come first (and should be clearly separated from other types of articles). There's a ton of those so maybe just the really really big ones. If you want to emphasize Krugman-as-the-public-intellectual than probably listing his books first would be more accurate.radek (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm putting books first since for most people he is probably most relevant as a public intellectual, even though his most lasting contribution is surely to economics. I would say though that compared with most academic economists, his books have been a more central part of his academic contribution (some contain original theoretical material, and some are just collections of related sets of his academic articles). By the way, I'm sure I am making some mistakes in my quick classification, so help is appreciated. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what this thing is, so I removed it:

• Krugman Wall Street Journal Sub Card (May 5, 2005) ISBN 0716766973

--Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OR tag

What is it for? Can we remove it or work on it and remove it?radek (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Death?

I don't see anything in the news. rootology (C)(T) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's based on this random opinion piece from a partisan magazine, here. Fake. rootology (C)(T) 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving - adding auto-archiver

Given the length of this page, I'm going to establish an auto-archiver as I expect this talk page will be very busy in the next few weeks. Objections here.--Gregalton (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Krugman's early and direct statements that the claims of the Bush Administration on the economy, the Iraq war and other issues were lies attracted criticism. The journalist

The above section (under 'Criticism') looks like it might have been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.61.73 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Krugman the alleged non-economist

Krugman hasn't only been criticized for his NYT commentaries, he has also been labeled as a non-economist posing as an economist, see http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1318. One may draw their own conclusions on this point, but the fact that at least one economist believes Krugman to be an impostor deserves at least a line of note. - 128.101.231.19 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait... how many of those people affiliated with the Mises Institute have won a Nobel Prize? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an opinion and not a fact. The fact is by what consititutes a professional definition of an economist, which would be someone whose career is in economic research, publishing in legitimate journals, with a graduate degree in either Economics or some branches of Mathematics. Facts are Krugman holds PH.d in Economics from an Ivy league institution. He holds a professor position at a research university, a rank which is attained primarily by engaging in academic process (anyone familiar with tenure track knows this, and he publishes in prestigious acedmic journals. Heck he probably publishes more prestigious journals than his critics who call him illegitimate. Academic journals are peer reviewed and go through a rigorous selection process, to ensure only quality research is published. In otherwards no matter what critics say of him, the fact is at the current moment, and has been true the last 30 years, krugman is a legitimate economist. Not only that, among the most influential in International Trade. Even influential opponents in the same field Bhagwati, his former teacher and from opposing school, statement he was the best student I ever had.

24.86.195.163 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the really important point here is that the partisan hacks (like this guy and this other guy) who claim Krugman is academically past his prime know nothing about the history of the economics Nobel. Most economics Nobels have been awarded for work that was done decades earlier (usually to people much older than Krugman is now). I suppose it's because there is a long list of economists who are considered eligible, and because the prize committee waits for many years after the work is published, to see how deep an impact it has on the field, before making an award. So to give a few examples:

• Edmund Phelps won in 2006; his most important work was in 1968, when he helped lay the foundations of the Philips Curve
• Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott won in 2004; their most important papers are from 1977 (on 'time consistency') and 1982 (on 'real business cycles')
• Robert Mundell won in 1999, primarily for his theory of optimal currency areas, which he published in 1961

So compared with other economics Nobels, it is completely normal for Krugman to win in 2008, primarily for his New Trade Theory analyzing how increasing returns to scale affect trade, which is all based on a paper he published in 1979 (further developed in additional papers throughout the 1980s and early 1990s). --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic work

The section entitled 'Economic theories' is pretty weak. I would suggest calling it 'Academic contributions' instead, and discussing the following four main headings. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• International trade: his work in this area stems from 'Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade', 1979. Journal of International Economics 9, pp. 469-79. It's the main thing he got the Nobel for.
• Economic geography: the increasing returns in his trade theory imply a tendency for economic activity to concentrate in small geographic areas. This gave rise to his work on geography. This is the second thing he got the Nobel for.
• International finance: also in 1979, Krugman published 'A model of balance-of-payments crises'. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 11, pp. 311-25. This paper was the foundation of what is called the 'first generation' model of currency crises. Other authors published a similar model of the gold standard around the same time (Salant and Henderson, Journal of Political Economy 1978, who Krugman cites in his paper), which may be why this work was not cited in Krugman's Nobel. Krugman later worked on the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and on the liquidity trap in Japan.
• Income distribution: while Krugman has not published technical papers on this topic, increasing US income inequality has been a constant theme of his books for the general public. I would favor including this in the list too, since it is an economic topic where he has been influential even though he has not been a major theoretical figure here.

What about Krugman and the Draft?

Krugman turned 18 in 1971, when the Vietnam War was raging. Although one would assume that he did everything within his power to avoid serving, it isn't clear how he did so. Perhaps a safe lottery number?

In 1971 the 19 year old draft lottery was in effect. That ment you were not liable to be drafted until you turned 19 and your number was selected. By the time he turned 19 draft calls would have been declining (due to radically reduced troop strength in Viet Nam as we withdrew). By '73 the draft had been abolished. Basicly, he was too young to have served in Viet Nam. Even if he had been a little older, student defferment, might have kept him out of it. BTW I was drafted in '67, so I am old enough to know what I'm talking about.

His draft lottery number (for men born on 2/28/53) was 295. (See http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72.htm) If he was classified as a "1", he almost certainly was 1-H - numbers higher than 100 were usually "safe". (I was born in 1953, classified as 1-H at number 192.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.119.155 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Ethnicity?

That Mr. Krugman in Jewish has no place in a discussion of his academic credentials, nor does it seem an appropriate thing to include in the first paragraph of his biography. I do not believe Mr. Krugman is particularly known for his involvement in Jewish causes, nor is that the primary focus of the article. I believe this should be removed or, if relevance can be demonstrated, moved to an appropriate subsection. Thelatinist (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is standard practice to cover background information, including ethnicity, in Wikipedia articles. This information helps the readers understand the perspective of the individual. Tobit2 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen ethnicity getting a lot of play--nationality, yes. Ethnicity, I'm not convinced. For some people it may be relevant enough to highlight, for others (and I think Krugman falls in the others category) it's of minor importance. I don't think there's anything wrong with the first line of the "Biography" section saying, "Krugman was born into a Jewish family...". That's background. I just don't think it matters enough to be in the article lead (where various editors put it from time to time). CRETOG8(t/c) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected since September 16 to stop some IPs who were edit-warring to add information about his ethnicity into the lead. Since their changes to the lead were constantly reverted by regular editors, their change clearly did not enjoy consensus support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

what is your problem with jewish ethnicity? are you racist? everybody putting ethnicity origins, in famous people biographies. and you have only problem this man? shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.215.145 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Thelatinist intervention was trying to avoid the mention of his ethnicity, because there is already a disproportionate number of jewish american personalities presented in this encyclopedia, and that might create the impression of a "chosen people". Enegrea (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what impression. this is encyclopedia and must be mentioned every detail. there is a lot of people who writting biographies in this site,and mentioning ethnicity origin. he should pay attention to hes own people, not to get into other peoples problems. may be he is just a jealous kid hiding behind the corner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.215.145 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are any number of facts about Mr Krugman which are true, we have to decide which ones are relevant. I'm not sure what I think would be best for this article, but one thing does occur to me: As well as jewish, he's also greying, slightly pudgy (judging from the photo), and if we really put the effort in we could probably dredge up a bronze swimming certificate dating from about 1959. We have to decide which of these pieces of information is relevant to an encyclopedia article about an economist. I can't see anywhere that Krugrman himself has even mentioned his jewishness, or any evidence that it's influenced him. On what basis are we including this piece of information? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Mr Krugman is Jewish should appear in the first paragraph since the activities he is known for are not directly related to it. However it should certainly appear in his personal information. Tsf (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See Paul Krugman#Personal for where that information currently appears. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

According to WP:OCAT Krugman doesn't belong in Category:Jewish American writers or Category:Jewish American scientists. Here's the relevant quote from that editing guideline:

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

Furthermore, because of the topics covered by his book and blog The Conscience of a Liberal, he belongs in Category:American bloggers and Category:Political journalists.

So to comply with the {{editsemiprotected}} requirement for a specific description request: please remove this article from Category:Jewish American writers and Category:Jewish American scientists, then add it to Category:American bloggers and Category:Political journalists.

Thanks in advance. 72.244.207.65 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done He was already in Category:American bloggers, so I can't take credit for that one, but I did make the other three changes. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I do think that in certain cases ethnicity play important role. As for Jews it already prove itself to have this kind of importance. Secondly, being of Jewish background is salient in many ways as being from African American origin. Thirdly, his Jewishness was mentioned briefly, so I really didn't get why there are users that find it so important to suggest a removal every time when the article is about Jews, or that I just take it too hard.--Gilisa (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. You could try to find reliable sources that speak about Krugman which assert that his ethnicity is relevant to his notability. Otherwise it seems you are disagreeing with WP:MOSBIO. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the sweep objection of few users for any mentioning of Krugman (or any other Jew) ethnicity and not about the opening paragraph in this article.--Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't know whether Krugman's ethnicity is relevant, but I was disappointed to see the whole biographical section deleted. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's basic knowledge that he is Jewish. It's like to mention that someone was born into Irish catholic family. So, I cant understand why there is such a big buzz around this issue. --Gilisa (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is completely not an issue. It is background bibliographic information, like mentioning that he was born on Long Island. There is absolutely no good reason to remove this from the bibliography, any more than there is a good reason to remove his birthplace. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, y'all. I think it's an annoying issue to many editors (myself included) because there's various other editors who push really hard to identify any ethnic Jew as such in the first sentence of their article. I think most of us agree that there's little or no problem in having it included as a piece of information within the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that identifying the subject as ethnically Jewish in the first sentence of the article would be WP:UNDUE. In my post above I wasn't talking about the very first sentence of the article, but rather the paragraph of the article which talks about his early years (which seems to be the right place to mention this in the case of Krugman). After more carefully investigating this thread, I see that the original objection was to this version of the lead. May I suggest that we mark this thread as resolved to prevent further misunderstandings? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread was launched to decide if his ethnicity ought to be given in the lead. (There was an edit war by IPs, in mid-September, trying to put it in the lead). Consensus here was *not* to have it in the lead. Nobody here has disagreed with putting his ethnicity lower down in the article. So I agree the thread should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rating?

I noticed this article is rated as Start-class for biography, but B-class for economics. Is it a C-class article, perhaps? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely not be rated B in economics. Start or C would be appropriate. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After recent improvements, the article has definitely achieved C, maybe B. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Excess weight on Austrian critics

The current version cites the WP:Fringe Austrian school much more than is justified by WP:WEIGHT, especially in a bio article. Austrians cited include Klein, Boudreaux, and Lew Rockwell, the last of whom doesn't have any kind of academic positions. One of these would be enough. It would be better to find some mainstream critics - Chicago would be an obvious place to look.JQ (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of undue weight is extreme veering dangerously towards censorship (but weren't you the one who wanted to remove Austrian School completely from WP?). Two tiny weenie references encapsulating literally dozens of criticisms of Krugman's allegedly biased liberal views and allegedly derivative, unoriginal, mediocre, neo-Keynesian economic modelling is not undue.

I have a cream that helps with thin skin if you need it. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Note:RPRP subsequently banned as a sock of repeat puppeteer KarmaIsKing)

"weren't you the one who wanted to remove Austrian School completely from WP?" Umm, no. Do you have any basis for this claim? On your general point, if there are indeed dozens of criticisms from different reliable sources (as opposed to repeated criticism from the same handful of fringe figures), why not include them, instead of relying exclusively on such marginal sources? JQ (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, RPRP, please be civil. There is absolutely no need for an Abusive ad hominem here. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of serious criticism from reliable sources I remember Jagdish Bhagwati criticizing Krugman some way back thought I can't find the exact source at the moment. I'm not sure if this would be notable enough, just basic (and in this case amiable) disagreement among academics but it'd be a lot more serious than what's in now.radek (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good source for Bhagwati's criticism [5].JQ (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Information Box

Why is he in a box called neokaynesian economics, rather than Paul Krugman? And why is this box different to all the other biographies of nobel winning economists. Please change this box to be consistent, since it provides more information and does not imply that Krugman is a one-man, walking economic concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.178.136 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the formatting of Template:Infobox Economist. I agree its ugly. Many of the other Nobel-winning economists use Template:Infobox Scientist which has a nicer format. DavidRF (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Krugman does a complete 180, and decides that protectionism is great

[6] Oh wow. 129.120.177.129 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. He writes (in conclusion): "And if we go all protectionist, that will shatter the hard-won achievements of 70 years of trade negotiations — and it might take decades to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. But there is a short-run case for protectionism — and that case will increase in force if we don’t have an effective economic recovery program." You can hardly claim this is an argument FOR protectionism - it's a warning.

In other words, in the long run protectionism is bad (in the economic sense), but economically there is a short-run case in which it may be superior (specifically, the case where 'we don't have an effective economic recovery program') - and the political/economic situation (no effective recovery program, lack of global coordination, etc) is such that we may end up there (and, even if "bad" in the long run, it may be better given the circumstances, i.e. looming danger of long, painful depression).

This column is a warning that without an effective recovery program, free trade may be doomed. It is wonkish (see the title of the piece, "Protection and Stimulus (wonkish))", and spends more time on the special circumstances and economic argument given that it is an unusual conclusion.

This is classic economics: if we don't do X (for example, deal with the credit bubble before it explodes), we will end up in unusual situation Y (for example, deflation and ineffective monetary policy), and if so, unusual measures which would normally be considered economically "bad" may end up being the only tool available (for example, large government deficit spending i.e. fiscal measures to get to recovery). I think if you search diligently that Krugman had many articles to this effect; it doesn't mean that Krugman generally supports fiscal measures over monetary, but rather he supports fiscal means when monetary means are ineffective.

In this case, he is more directly arguing that if fiscal measures ("better") are not used soon, protectionist measures ("worse") can be expected - and that the longer-run consequences of this will be worse than e.g. having run a deficit (fiscal means). And in other words, "hey you freshwater economists - choose your poison: fast-acting, mildly discomfitting, reversible fiscal deficits or slow-acting, irreversible heavy metal/amputation trade protectionism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberal columnist

I find the expression "liberal columnist" problematic. Should it not be American liberal columnist? But that then brings up the problem whether he is an American columnist who supports liberalism or a columnist who supports American liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it problematic? For non-American readers? Maybe. But the link currently is piped to Modern liberalism in the United States; "American liberal" redirects to the more general Liberalism in the United States. Maybe a linking with Krugman's explanation of what he means by liberalism (European social democracy) would help, if a whole lede sentence is devoted to the issue. Rd232 ^talk 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In most countries if someone is called a "liberal" then they are associated with that country's liberal party, e.g., the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal Party (UK). But since America does not have a party called the Liberal Party of America the quote is confusing. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the reason why I favor removing 'liberal' from the first sentence, and adding a sentence about Krugman being liberal in the American sense, meaning 'social democratic' in Europe. LK (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The term Krugman used was "more or less". I do not think he was saying it was the same thing. I would just state Krugman's support of Modern American liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the term Krugman prefers for his brand of politics is "progressive", and in fact he defended his preference for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in those terms. [7] "Liberal" in the "classical liberal" sense might be considered to apply to his views on trade; some progressives criticize him for just those views. Well, at least we're not arguing about whether he's an "ultra-leftist". ;-) I would go with "progressive". Yakushima (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation

Since discussions at talk were unable to achieve consensus, it seems appropriate to file a request for formal meditation. If you are willing to participate sign below:

1. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• skip sievert (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the article is still protected and we're inching towards progress on some points, this seems premature. Mediation should only be tried when all avenues have been exhausted, and we have multiple issues and only one WP:RFC to show. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• It says in the heading here if you are willing to participate sign below. If you are not willing to participate maybe you should or could start a different area on that then as to debate. There are editors that are not able to compromise some issues here that are simple and straightforward (my opinion). Throwing even this aspect into contention, is a continuance of disruptive like editing on the talk page. Notably two editors on this page are showing extreme un neutral almost promo like commentary of the subject (Krugman) of the article, up and down the talk page... and appear to be as if singing a blog like Paean to the subject, instead of just delivering information in n.p.o.v.-. Those two have been confronting and accusatory as to motives of other editors, which does not sit well. A laundry list of those things could be given. It appears that this is continuing now, and maybe the only clear way to go forward is to have outside neutral parties look at the information objectively, and make suggestions and overview comments. skip sievert (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Well the article is protected for 5 days. Let's summarise the issues to get through (substantive debate in individual sections if they exist above, or in new sections if not, please, but above this section please). When the issue is resolved, strikethrough and note result.

resolved issues

• "liberal economist" v "Keynesian economist". Result: neither - keep just plain "economist", per other economist articles
• Find better source for Krugman supporting globalisation than Daily of Uni Washington; remove pending that {{fact}} tag pending that
• Is Mediation now necessary, or should we continue, with WP:RFC if necessary?
• Fix: journalist -> columnist in section title, and probably split section into author / columnist
• Add some details based on material in (talkpage) Foundation section

old issues

• Whether the 2003 Economist article can be used to support "political partisanship" etc
• Anderson and Luskin critiques - include or not (if so, how)
• More mainstream sources commenting on Krugman's columns
• Public intellectual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.29.14 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  Daniel B. Klein writes "His eminence as a public-intellectual economist in the United States today is unsurpassed."

• Does the "bubble" para have consensus for inclusion? Regardless of that, can it be improved? See "US economic policies" section above
• Add new here

new issues

• Improve summary of his economics contribution in the lede
• Expand bio section. Do we really know so little about him and his career?
• Expand consultancy section. It's clear he's done more of that than 4 days for Enron.
• Add new here

Come on, everyone. Despite some strong differences of opinion, let's try and find a way to move forward. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on substantive issues in the appropriate topic sections NOT here. Comments on general moving forward or what issues to be addressed etc, here. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just archived a bunch of stuff which seems to be either resolved or going round in circles. If necessary, I suggest a restart of any issues that people need to be on the list above but currently aren't, or that are and don't have sections and need discussion. I suggest such sections should work towards rapidly (but not immediately) developing a WP:RFC formulation. Rd232 ^talk 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS In case anyone's tempted to unarchive some or all - please don't, unless you're absolutely sure it'll be helpful. Starting afresh and copypasting key points from the archive, taking into account the entire discussion, seems much more likely to make some progress. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Foundation

For when it's unprotected: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/books/review/Upfront-t.html is a second, independent, ref for Krugman's Asimov inspiration. --Gwern (contribs) 08:06 8 August 2009 (GMT)

By early 2009, Krugman's seminal 1991 JPE paper had 857 citations, more than double his second-ranked paper. (Kristian Behrens, Frédéric Robert-Nicoud 2009, "Krugman's Papers in Regional Science: The 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk is gone and the 2008 Nobel Prize well-deserved", Papers in Regional Science, 88(2), pp467-489). Krugman called the paper "the love of my life in academic work" (Krugman PR (2008b) Interview with the 2008 laureate in economics Paul Krugman, 6 December 2008. Stockholm, Sweden. URL: http://nobelprizeorg/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/krugman-interviewhtml)

Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As Edward Glaeser put it squarely, "Krugman's fame as a public intellectual should not lead anyone to think that they understand his contributions to economic research just because they regularly read his columns".[8]

"New economic geography quite naturally grew out of the new trade theory. The HME [Home Market Effect] result established by Krugman launched NEG as the basic building block for the whole subsequent literature that explains agglomeration as the outcome of the interaction of increasing returns, trade costs and factor price differences. Although the step from NTT to NEG was, in retrospect, a small one, it took Krugman 11 years to actually take it."(Kristian Behrens, Frédéric Robert-Nicoud 2009, "Krugman's Papers in Regional Science: The 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk is gone and the 2008 Nobel Prize well-deserved", Papers in Regional Science, 88(2), pp467-489)

In Krugman's own words, the passage from NTT to NEG was "obvious in retrospect; but it certainly took me a while to see it. Why exactly I spent a decade between showing how the interaction of transport costs and increasing returns at the level of the plant could lead to the "home market effect" (Krugman 1980) and realizing that the techniques developed there led naturally to simple models of regional divergence (Krugman 1991) remains a mystery to me. The only good news was that nobody else picked up that $100 bill lying on the sidewalk in the interim."(Krugman (1999) "Was it all in Ohlin?" Available at URL: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ohlin.html)

"Krugman was beyond doubt the key player in 'placing geographical analysis squarely in the economic mainstream' (Krugman 1998, p. 7) and in conferring it the central role it now assumes." (Behrens and Robert-Nicoud; Krugman 98 = Krugman PR (1998) What's new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14: 7–17)

Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"he has written on a wide range of topics, always combining one of the best prose styles in the profession with an ability to construct elegant, insightful and useful models."(J Peter Neary, 2009, "Putting the 'New' into New Trade Theory: Paul Krugman's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics", Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 111(2), pp217-250)

"no discussion of his work could fail to mention his transition from Academic Superstar to Public Intellectual. Through his extensive writings, including a regular column for the New York Times, monographs and textbooks at every level, and books on economics and current affairs for the general public ... he has probably done more than any other writer to explain economic principles to a wide audience."(Neary op cit)

Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Foundation bit added, and the rest in this revision. Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

US economic policies

In recent edit war following text was removed:

• "In August 2002, Krugman argued that the economy would not recover quickly, and wrote that, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of PIMCO put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." He further noted that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s). Krugman later stated that his statement about "a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" was economic analysis and not policy advocacy."

This text was added in June after much discussion on how to neutrally present Krugman's views. Did something changed since then? -- Vision Thing -- 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the removal, to see the edit summary. In any case I still have a problem with it; it's a distillation of an internet meme saying that Krugman called for a bubble. Well maybe he did, maybe he didn't (there's that Spanish interview video on the same theme), but in the context it makes more sense than the isolated quotes: "The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off." Certainly the full quote makes Krugman "analysis not advocacy" remark seem a lot less weaselly. Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the "Dubya's Double Dip" article, but on the other hand Krugman makes his position in clear in many of his other articles. He does, in general, encourage lower interest rates and thus greater debt, which happens to be what leads to bubbles. Given the controversy surrounding the "double dip" article, the article itself has notoriety and should be included, but additional context from other articles consistent with the accusion of calling for the bubble should also be provided in the same discussion, along with the context of his quote making his "analysis not advocacy" comment seem "less weaselly". Ramorum (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's a potential problem there - lower interest rates leading to bubbles is not something we can merely assert, and even with some ref(s), thee's a possible WP:SYNTH trap to be avoided. Lower interest rates are after all a standard policy instrument for fighting low demand. Rd232 ^talk 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramorum, You've just made a hidden assumption that needs to be clarified. Only according to the Austrian (heterodox) view does low interest rates lead to bubbles. In the mainstream view, recessions are caused by an increase in money demand (simplifying a bit), an so an increase in money supply and low interest rates are the correct obvious response. According to mainstream economic theory, low interest rates during recessions don't lead to bubbles, and so it is incorrect to assume that when Krugman prescribes low interest rates he thus encourages bubbles. In the mainstream view, bubbles happen when there's an initial positive shock, and uncertainty about future values, leading to self-fulfilling expectations about increases in asset prices. LK (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, ChildofMidnight gave following summary no secondary sources for this content either. -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy on Criticism and praise

I've added this clarification [9] "Opinion editorial sourced criticism should never be used in the article lead." The Alan Greenspan BLP contained a paragraph of Op-ed criticism in the lead which I've removed. Scribner (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An edit to WP policy that helps you achieve what you want for an article is not a "clarification" -- it's unilaterally making Wikipedia policy. "Be bold" should have certain limits, I think. Paul Krugman is somewhat a "controversialist", intentionally provocative, evoking a lot of opinion, positive and negative. He would, in fact, be quite notable for that alone, sans Nobel Prize. Most people have never heard of Joseph Stiglitz (a greater economist by most peer measures) and probably most never will. You sure can't say that about Krugman. If anything, I'd say, if there was no negative mainstream opinion cited in the lede of this BLP, it would be incomplete. Yakushima (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this "clarification" was objected to as contrary to Wikipedia practice and was reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And the edit wars continue over negative Op-ed materials. Current policy is too vague, to subjective. Wiki becomes more a tabloid and less an encyclopedia with negative opinion related materials that are used to "balance", placement of negative opinion-related material in the lead severely mars Wiki's reputation. Scribner (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we should remember that your position is not yet policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, if a BLP subject has become notable in part because of strongly positive and negative opinions in sources that do not violate WP:FRINGE, if there's any relevant guideline for the lead in such BLP, it ought to allow something like "<LP>'s <work, life, and/or views> have excited considerable debate, with noted critics going so far as to say 'X' and laudatory commentators saying 'Y'." If anything, omitting mention that a highly controversial figure is controversial, without providing substantiation in the lead, would be what would hurt Wikipedia's reputation. Yakushima (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

EU

Krugman's views on the € and EU policies and the response from ECB might be interesting enough to add to the article [10] [11] -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of judgement WP editors should not be reaching based on reading Krugman's columns. See WP:PSTS. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly the sort of judgment WP editors are expected to reach. If you haven't read WP:PSTS, I suggest that you at least read this line: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." -- Vision Thing -- 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That line is driven by the need to leave editors latitude when primary sources contradict secondary and tertiary. It is not permission to cherry-pick from primary sources, which absolutely should be filtered by secondary sources to demonstrate the significance of those particular primary sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true, and that is evident from reading BLP, which even allows usage of primary self-published material. [12] -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true, and again the latitude to use primary self-published material does not give carte blanche to cherry-pick, it is there because normally self-published sources are not permitted at all, but in the case of BLP subjects an exception can sometimes be made - an exception does not introduce licence to cherry-pick without reference to secondary sources. If you doubt me, ask at WP:BLPN or WT:BLP. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

First Vision Thing and now Child of Midnight have reverted my addition of background on Krugman's 90s columns and early NYT columns from the 2002 Washington Monthly article, claiming "neutrality" and "bias". my addition. I refer them to WP:PRESERVE part of editing policy, and also request a proper explanation of the problem, which it would only be common courtesy for either or both to give on removing a substantial addition like that. Rd232 ^talk 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Has good information, but I think it can be reworded to be a bit more neutral. However, that's not a reason to delete it outright. I would re-add and fix, but don't want to start another edit war. I vote for tweaking and re-adding. LK (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Alan Blinder quote is the only part I can see people having a problem with, but it's highly apposite, from a well-known mainstream economist, and speaks to the partisanship which some people seem so desperate to demonstrate. The rest is neutral as far as I can see. There's perhaps more that can be had from the Monthly article, but I'm wary of over-relying on a single old source, so I'd rather focus on those specific periods going up to the Monthly article which the article contextualises as part of Krugman's trajectory as columnist up to that point. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues with your edit. 1) You are quoting without attributing. 2) You are repeating Krugman's personal attacks and rants. 3) You are relying way too much on leftist Washington Monthly as a source. -- Vision Thing -- 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1) fair enough, I was in a hurry; nothing that copy-pasting some more ref tags can't fix 2) repeating what you characterise as "attacks and rants" is half the point. These particular comments have been cited as relevant in a secondary source and help to explain Krugman's trajectory as columnist in his own words. You keep trying to find ways to show Krugman is a partisan, so I'm mystified at your objection. 3) WP:PSTS. We should use secondary sources, and the Washington Monthly's is one of the few major sources on Krugman's body of work as a columnist. That particular article (I don't read the Monthly, can't comment more widely) is also far far more neutral in tone and mainstream in opinion than what you have tried to introduce. 4) Since these criticisms have so little substance, I'm reintroducing the material, with extra ref quotes. Rd232 ^talk 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording a bit to make it more neutral (it was already to pretty neutral to start with). If there's any objection to the current wording, I would like to suggest editing rather than reverting the section. LK (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, here you said: "Reason given for deletion is irrelevant (not least because material can be deleted for multiple reasons). It's a BLP and contentious material should not be reinserted against or prior to consensus." Maybe you should have qualified it then that this rule doesn't apply to you. -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article is better without that content. What significance is it to say "at the height of the boom he was hired"? They knew that was the height of the boom? How did they know that? This is just one example. I removed it and suggested discussing it here so it could be fixed. It also now has some strange wording about "he did indeed". It makes the article worse and doesn't add anythign encyclopedic. I suggest, again, removing it and discussing it here so it doesn't bloat the article with nonsense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  The significance, obviously, is to contextualise the quote about the reason he was hired (writing about economics in an age of prosperity). I fail to see what's strange about a perfectly usual English expression, but if you want to tweak it or propose an alternative, feel free. Rd232 ^talk 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and the suggestion that this wording implies that in 1999 people knew it was the height of the boom seems pretty odd. Again, if this bothers you that much, suggest a clarification. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  I take out the garbage. I don't try to fix it. If you want to rewrite it, then post it here and we can work out what the heck it is you're trying to say. Saying someone was hired at the height of the economic boom implies just that. But of course no one knew it was the height of the boom, or do you ahve a source that says different? I understand that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but you need to think about what purpose an encyclopedia serves and how it needs to be written. If there is some significance to why he was hired in 1999 then spell it out (and make sure you have a source for it). The relevance that it turned out to be at an economic peak is not made clear, and since it wasn't known until after the fact that it was a peak, that should also be made clear. Otherwise just take it out. Which is what conscientious editors did, only to be reversed by you without addressing the concerns.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"I take out the garbage. I don't try to fix it." Sorry, Child, but it wasn't garbage -- I could see what it was saying -- it just wasn't very good. You don't have some special privilege among editors to declare things garbage. And if you have issues with a passage (I did, with that one, there are some grains of truth to your criticisms), WP:PRESERVE applies: fix it, or discuss here how to fix it, don't just revert it. Yakushima (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another example: "In this period Krugman focussed on critiquing economic policy - "leftists who criticized the World Trade Organization, supported protectionism, and still believed in Keynes; conservatives who argued that the Dow could reach 36,000 and still believed in supply side economics.""

What does this mean? What is its relevance? The content was wisely removed by two good faith editors who noted some of the problems with it. And you've simply edit warred it back in instead of working out the problems. This is disappointing. The article was better without it. If you don't want to work together to fix it then please don't add garbage back in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its meaning seems pretty plain (perhaps we can add wikilinks), and no specific problems with it have been identified. It's useful as an example of the sort of thing Krugman was then doing. The next thing would be to clarify further the sort of thing Krugman focussed on post-2000, for which the Monthly article and the Klein analysis can be used, but other sources would be great if we can find them. Rd232 ^talk 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's nonsense gobbledy gook that isn't written properly. This is an encyclopedia. These blobs of text with random bits that signify nothing aren't helpful. I suggest you remove it so we can help you. Start by thinking about what it is you're actually trying to say. That he is outspoken with his opinions? That he criticizes people on the left and right? That he passes lots of judgments? What does the floating dash mean? You might as well include stream of consciousness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, MOS and WP:QUOTE suggest that we paraphrase instead of quote extensively. How about we paraphrase it as: "In this period Krugman focused on critiquing economic opinions from both the left and the right, arguing against a broad range of opinions, from those who criticized the World Trade Organization and supported protectionism, to those who still believed in supply side economics." If no objections, will replace the text. LK (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The quote covers a lot of ground in few words though, I'd be reluctant to lose any of it in a paraphrase. Incidentally, does it seem right to only mention his Nobel in the third sentence of the second para, where Child of Midnight moved it? The first para now finds time to mention "columnist" twice though. Rd232 ^talk 05:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Child, here's some actual "nonsense gobbledy gook" for comparison: "oomph golly gee thumpa wait a sec rabbit hole up and down." And here's a "blob of text with random bits": ""#) the ('k lk travis lkj hn)('j23". So can we we perhaps dial it back a little? The contribution had information in it with some value for the article. It wasn't "nonsense gobbledy gook" or a "blob of text with random bits". For the floating dash you say makes it almost "stream of consciousness", you could have substituted "such as those from" (which is how I read it) and I think it would have been good foundation for improvement, at least. I have trouble seeing how someone would consider the original as incomprehensible as you claim it seemed to you . . . unless perhaps they had very little background knowledge in economics and its controversies -- for example, if they didn't know what the WTO was, or supply-side economics, or didn't know that there was a bestseller entitled Dow 36,000 at one point in the bubble a decade ago. Do you happen to match that description? Yakushima (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Request comment

Please comment here regarding policy changes that advise against Op-ed criticism or praise in the lead. Scribner (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing negative information on Krugman

Since there is a tag that negative information on Krugman is missing, I propose that we list and discuss what negative information is missing from the article below. LK (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some discussions are already open here and here. Also, some of the criticisms should be summarized in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 12:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, those disputes are settled. If there are any others, please move them here for discussion. The tag should not stay forever. LK (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. There's plenty of discussion of criticisms Krugman now, and there will probably be plenty more. If "missing negative information" means "does not contain every possible iota of negative information about Krugman", it would have to stay up there forever. I mean, what if we took it down only to learn tomorrow that Krugman's potty-training took 7 weeks longer than the average kid's? Or that he's gained 10 pounds in the last two months? Or that he once accidentally locked his cat in an upstairs closet before going into Princeton to give five hours of lectures? Yakushima (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think more relevant is the observation that just because someone somewhere has uttered something negative about Krugman, that does not mean it must be in the article. We have to be selective about criticism, praise, and other opinions about Krugman and his work, including only the most noteworthy of them. LK (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say "the more noteworthy of them." One problem is the Krugman sometimes drags stuff up from sources most people would probably ignore, like that ridiculous claim that he favored a housing bubble, which came from a blog on the decidedly fringe von Mises Institute website. Did he get that one going? It's almost like he made it notable himself, simply by writing about it. What is the relevant policy here? In a way, I'm happy with considering this sort of thing "more/most noteworthy", because all you have to do is state the actual facts about the case to make the critics look ridiculous to reasonable people. Yakushima (talk)

Yakushima, the history of the housing bubble quote is this. Arnold Kling noted on his blog that the paragraph that Krugman wrote is something that he's glad that he himself didn't write in 2002 (implying that he had felt the same way, and was glad that he didn't voice that opinion, as the housing bubble that followed makes saying that look stupid, not that there was anything wrong with feeling that way at that time). Kling's is a libertarian blog, and so the quote was then widely misquoted all over the right-wing blogosphere, transforming into the claim that 'Krugman demanded a housing bubble' to 'the housing bubble was Krugman's fault' (c.f. the von Mises Institute website posts). Krugman then issued a terse clarification that the paragraph was economic analysis, not policy advocacy. Kling shortly after wrote an article defending Krugman, and explaining why Krugman was right and his detractors wrong (note that Kling is a libertarian). Unfortunately things never die on the internets, and so Krugman is still being libeled even today. LK (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputes are not settled at all. -- Vision Thing -- 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's one I thing we can settle immediately, Vision Thing: above, you directly quoted The Economist without attribution, as if the words were your own. Only later, after I found the editorial you used as a source, and pointed out which (inconvenient) words you'd dropped, did you supply the appropriate quote marks. Just an honest mistake? If so, are you sure you're really careful enough to be working on articles where the very stringent requirements of WP:BLP apply? After all, you've claimed that Krugman holds views that are far out of the mainstream, but you haven't been able to substantiate that claim. Maybe you should go work on Wikipedia articles about topics you're better acquainted with? Yakushima (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I provided relevant quotes from The Economist here, for all to see them and comment them. -- Vision Thing -- 11:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"All to see"? Maybe on August 6th. Now it's in an archive. I arrived later. And I saw what everybody here can see now [13] in Version 1 and in the strikeout of Version 2: your (possibly simply sloppy) appropriation of words from The Economist editorial. Now, if you'd written "Actually, I'd provided relevant quotes before, but then copied and pasted them without the obviously-required quote marks, because I got sloppy", I'd say you were arguing in good faith. Instead you're defending yourself without admitting error. Not exactly "good faith", I'm afraid. Yakushima (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an exercise for you, VT. Find that edit where you wrote that there's an academic dispute between those who say

government can not spend its way out of a recession because consumers realize that extra spending now will necessitate higher taxes in the future.

and where the article you cited reads:

"government can't spend its way out of a recession because consumers realise that extra spending now will necessitate higher taxes in the future."

That's some serious paraphrasing, VT. Must have taken you quite a while. Likewise for this [14]. On thin ice with this one [15] as well, I'd say. That list is a nice turn of phrase in the source you cite -- why didn't you put quotes around it? I see a lot of scholarly sloppiness that could be considered plagiarism, and for hardly more than just the last two months of edits. It's rather distressing, actually, considering that these instances account for a pretty high fraction of the number of articles to which you've actually 'contributed substantially in that time, rather than simply tagging stuff you don't like, ripping out what you don't like, restoring what you do like, and bogging things down on Talk pages for articles. Oh, but your standards for others are clearly stratospherically high: When the very title of a source cited in excellent style is quite enough to substantiate what's implicitly claimed about that source, you rip out the whole edit [16] because . . . there was no page number was supplied?! The entire work is about the topic that the edit introduced! Yakushima (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC response

Hi. Responding to the request for comments on this biography. The material cited at the edit in question is much more positive than this article states. I don't see the whole citation because I don't subscribe to the Economist. But there is nothing there in the abstract that can't be included in this article, if it was done properly. Time to calm down. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations in edit summary

Are probably not a good idea when making edit summaries in the article. Content disputes are not connected with limited consensus and claiming consensus on this talk page when making mass reverts, as done just now by L.K. This is probably not a good idea since the article is problematic as to different contentions. Also is it common practice to use editing tools such as Twinkle in content disputes while using an edit summary of claimed consensus on the talk page? Serious question there with no irony intended. Also an earlier proposal for mediation of content disputes on this article seems appropriate now more than ever [17] skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The mass revert by VT wiped out not only what he was disputing about my changes to the Enron section, but also what I wrote concerning Krugman's role in assessing Japan's liquidity trap and Krugman's recommendation of inflation targeting as ameliorative policy. I don't see where about VT (or anyone) voiced any complaint whatsoever about the latter. In short, it seems that VT simply wiped out everything I've done on the article, with extreme prejudice, whether it related to ongoing disputes or not. The article is no longer protected, and I don't know why I can't be, as they say, "bold", and edit according to my best understanding of Wikipedia policy. I'm willing to listen to reason about how I might be violating policy. But I'm not sure I want any "reason" coming from anybody who unilaterally edits Wikipedia policy as convenient for their personal agenda for this article (which would be both Vision Thing [18] and Scribner [19] as it turns out. [20]) Yakushima (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have explained removal of Japan stuff in an edit summary here. Basically you are presenting Krugman's columns as academic work. -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing. If he argued something he argued it. And that's all I say. It doesn't matter where he argued it, if it was noteworthy opinion of his. And it was. If only peer-reviewed or formal academic work (e.g., textbooks) is permitted to be mentioned and cited, we have to throw out an awful lot of this Wikipedia article. But let's say you're right: that it should be academic work. You don't think it was the subject of academic work? 10 seconds of checking -- which YOU might have considered doing, if you're working in good faith, rather than just ripping out my changes, would have revealed this [21], co-authored with Kenneth Rogoff, no less. And this [22]. AND it would have shown you where those works have been cited in other peer-reviewed literature. Yakushima (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides which, WP:PRESERVE makes it incumbent upon you to either tag it as being in an inappropriate section or requiring academic citations, or to do the apparently-required improvement or rearrangement yourself. You can't just delete other people's work because you think it's in the wrong place. Yakushima (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Material in the academic section shouldn't be referencing columns. The Japan comments backed up by columns should be in the columnist section, and new Japan stuff based on those academic references above can be added to the Academic career section. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added academic cites, Rd232. I haven't removed cites to PK column material that closely parallels what he says in the peer-reviewed literature on the same subject. What I've added probably isn't quite right, but I'm editing in the belief that I'm generally improving the article, and that others are free to improve on my improvements -- by rearrangement, by cleaning up the prose, by making it more accurate, and by providing further supporting citations and contrary views from acceptable sources. This isn't easy, while under fire from people who sit back and criticize new material unthinking (looking at you, ChildofMidnight) and who violate WP:PRESERVE (Vision Thing, who is hardly limited in that misbehavior to what he's done with this article). It's not easy at all -- as you should know from your most recent attempts at significant improvement: [23] Yakushima (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The remaining PK column refs there can be justified I think. I know none of this is easy, but it isn't helpful to describe other editors as "unthinking" even when it's true, which it rarely is. And describing others' editing as "misbehavior" is also not helpful in these discussions; if there is a wider problem with an editor, there is dispute resolution if necessary. Keep up the good work, but try not to get frustrated. Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Massive reverts

Vision thing essentially reverted to his version from two days ago removing the edits of 3 other editors. I undid this massive revert, but Skip Sievert came along and reintroduced it. I would like to ask, exactly what is the reason for this massive revert, and how is it working towards consensus and not edit warring? LK (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All the editors joining this sequence of edits are edit warring. Please break down the edits and determine what is contentious and what is not, then start a discussion. Seek broader participation if you need help overcoming a deadlock. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors should target the edits they specifically disagree with instead of merely reverting everything done to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and have tried also to scare up some new participants to examine content disputes [24] - skip sievert (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. Ironically, I was about to start a new section here asking for help on my Enron section edits, because I felt I was too close to the material to see where there might in fact be WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH violations. Then VT comes along and nukes it all. (And stuff he hadn't disputed, and the edits of others as well.) Yakushima (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

LK, three days ago you mass reverted [25] all my edits citing non-existing consensus on talk. Then you did the same thing today. [26] -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both times, those were responses to your mass reverts to earlier versions, wiping out the work of several editors. LK (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Macroeconomics and fiscal policy

I've broken out the discussion of PK's work on liquidity traps, fiscal policy and inflation targeting into a new section, because

• This is notable work, and
• may end up having more significant implications for policy than anything he did in trade theory or economic geography.

Something to bear in mind in weighing his academic output: Einstein got a Nobel for analyzing brownian motion and the photoelectric effect, even though he was, at that point, far better known for his theories of relativity. Science prizes are not always given for the most important work; sometimes the specified accomplishments are only those that peers have agreed are most likely to withstand the test of time. Yakushima (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A similar case in mathematics was Atle Selberg, who did what is now recognized as his most influential work (the Selberg trace formula) after obtaining his Fields medal. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention a third reason - it was in "International finance" before. I think that's wrong. Strictly speaking, fiscal policy and domestic macroeconomic policy generally relate only rather tenuously to international finance, at least for economies on the scale of the U.S. and Japan. (I am not an economist, so feel free to slap me around if that's incorrect.) Yakushima (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Liquidity traps are a sub-topic of macroeconomics (new-Keynesian variety). LK (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Political views -- how much more to add?

I've added a paragraph for his views on race and politics in America. There's not all that much. What I can find is clearly relevant and moreover interesting -- and perhaps as important, it puts paid the notion that he's some radical leftist, far out of the mainstream. (As if we needed more evidence?) But this latest edit of mine raises a question of how much more to add here. Krugman is a politically opiniated guy. If we had a paragraph about every political/politicized topic he's written on to the extent that he's written about race, we'd probably have a lot more paragraphs in the "Political views" section. Where to stop? Yakushima (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit, [27] without secondary sources discussing Krugman's views on race, probably has to go. I had the same discussion with Vision Thing somewhere above: per WP:PSTS we can't just pick "interesting" Krugman views/columns, we need secondary sources demonstrating their significance. If we can't find any, the race bit should go. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, interesting as the articles might be to us, unless they have been taken note of by a secondary source, they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. LK (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Found two [28][29] in about 10 seconds. Scholarly, too. Need more? What's the bar I need to clear, here? Yakushima (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The bar is a combination of quality and quantity. Two good book refs seems good enough. Two blog refs probably wouldn't be. Gotta take it case by case, really. One thing to bear in mind is that overall size of the entry has to be kept manageable; it's not just about including everything that can be included, it's also about a certain filtering of what's important, which for very notable people has to involve excluding some things which are perhaps verifiable but not important enough to burden our readers with. This is often forgotten by WP editors, who frequently have a tendency to write the entry for themselves, rather than for the general public readership, which is why I make the point here so explicitly (and so generally, not aimed at anyone!). Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I tend to write as if certain events in the 90s had transpired yesterday. When you consider what happened with Krugman in the Bush years alone, however, I can see that my treatment might seem disproportionate to most readers. For example, if there'd been Wikipedia in 1998, I could easily see three juicy paragraphs about the Bryan Arthur / Mitchell Waldrop / Kenneth Arrow / New Yorker controversy. But these days, well -- if we were to treat at similar length every episode of similar scale, the article could triple in size. So maybe three sentences and half-a-dozen footnotes is now about right, for that one. Yakushima (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Double-checked both sources -- they not only cite Krugman's Loury piece, they quote it and comment on it. Now added as cites to the added paragraph. Now, can we get back to the issue I raised? I'd like to make progress. Yakushima (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been searching too. I found this one. I guess it deserves a mention in political views. As for how much weight to give it, I would defer to rd232, who is the more experienced editor. LK (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. His Conscience of a Liberal has been reviewed in several places mentioning the views expressed in that book on race in America and GOP strategy. I've left a full quote, but that might be too much. Feel free to paraphrase it down, I won't complain. Or even delete it if you think it's redundant with the paragraph lead sentence, and WP:UNDUE. But if so, please keep the cite to the Guardian review from which I pulled the quote - adding it to the first sentence. Maybe this isn't as small a part of his thinking as I thought. (I mainly read PK for commentary on political economy.) Yakushima (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not supported by cite

Can someone explain how this primary sourced article by Krugman (which we have far too many of in the article) supports this text [30]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Response to Nelson and Schwartz". It's clearly part of an ongoing exchange (Nelson and Schwartz replied in the same issue [31]). And I don't think it's controversial to say that the debate on monetarism continues! Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Find a source that says the exchange "continues to go on" or remove the unsupported bit. As the source is primary, it really only establishes that Krugman wrote about the subject. If there is a response article then it supports that Krugman wrote an article on that issue and it was responded to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"really only establishes that Krugman wrote about the subject"? WHAT?! The primary source is entitled "A reply", and it's a reply to (besides Nelson) one of the most respected economists in the world, (Anna Schwartz). But you somehow think this leaves open the possibility it wasn't part any continuing and fairly notable exchange among notable economists? You think Krugman was just sort of talking to himself there? You're telling us to find or remove things"? You're ordering people around here, even though you haven't acquainted yourself with the background of the supposed issue you're addressing? Way to earn respect, Child. Yakushima (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tone it down Yakushima, it doesn't help things to sound frustrated. Child has used the usual logic about avoiding primary sources, it just doesn't apply in the same way in this case because of the nature of the primary sources (being part of an academic exchange). It might help slightly to add the Rejoinder to Krugman's response. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Child, articles get better because people work to improve them, often in response to feedback. The feedback to which I was responding was that the discussion of liquidity trap and inflation targeting policy proposals had no academic citations. I'd put column writings in as placeholders, knowing full well that he'd also published on these issues in the peer-reviewed literature. The criticism that my contributions lacked appropriate supporting citations to academic work was valid. I have since added several. One of which you are now complaining about. I chose that one for a reason Rd232 could see easily enough: It makes sense to expand this section, because this was a notable academic debate, and Krugman's work from that time on inflation targeting is widely cited. This expansion would be not insignificant project -- one could easily add a section about it, and another paragraph. So I used the most recent primary source, as a kind of "anchor" for expanding the discussion, since Nelson and Schartz (to whom Krugman was responding) were only the most recently involved in the debate, and have probably cited everyone else previous. If you have more issues with this passage, why don't you try improving the section by adding more discussion, citing secondary sources commenting on Krugman's role in this economics controversy? Yakushima (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources describing Krugman's work would be far more helpful. Much of the article is original research (much of it fawning) because it's sourced mostly to Krugman. This is an encyclopedia, not na autobiography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point about the sourcing. There are a number of primary Krugman column refs unsupported by secondary sources on those issues - we need to work harder to find secondary sources to show those columns/views are significant. Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Child, not that I expect much accuracy from you anyway, but I think you must have meant "this is an encyclopedia, not a resume". "Autobiography"? I'm not Paul Krugman. Nobody else here is Paul Krugman either. He's got better things to do. Yakushima (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the article is written based on a process of cherry picking from Krugman's own work and his personal views, that amounts to a ghost writing of an autobiography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you do any actual work around here, Child? I just spent a few hours providing extensive secondary sourcing for bare handful of sentences I wrote. This is a big, and somewhat messy subject, about which I hope to provide some useful information. Now, if you're writing about, say fish tea, you might carry it off in lapidary style, with (apparently) perfect conformance to all relevant Wikipedia policies. And I suppose nobody's going to ask you any hard questions, like whether the sources you're citing might really be just paid-placement advertising. Working on this BLP isn't easy. If you don't think so, try your hand at it. Yakushima (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to put more work in where it isn't going to be immediately reverted by fanboys. Speaking of which, should his other award be mentioned in the opening paragraphs along with the Nobel? It's not clear to me that the Nobel prize is more significant, although it's certainly more well known. (And as far as I can tell they'll give those things to just about anyone. Didn't Al Gore and Yassir Arafat win them? Albeit not for economics, but still, it's mostly a politically motivated commendation that has little merit to it.) Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So you don't know the difference between the Nobel Peace Prize (which has some politics in it, inevitably, since what objective measure could there be (and what measure would include Henry Kissinger?)) and the others (physics, economics et al (albeit economics is slightly separate). I'm suddenly reminded of the saying "It's better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Rd232 ^talk 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More substantively, the John Bates Clark is in the infobox, and because few people know it, if it goes in the lede it needs explaining. Rd232 ^talk 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I don't know if you're still feeling unwell, but I stated "albeit not for economics", so clearly I am aware of the distinction you've highlighted (as a competent reading of my comment would have revealed). The peace prize has been discredited by a series of highly questionable honorees that appear to have been chosen for political reasons rather than on a basis of merit. This infection is not limited to the peace prize, but has also been noted in the awards given out in other fields. Even the literature prize is recognized to be quite political and some of the better writers have been passed over in favor of making various points.

If you don't think the other award or awards are worth mentioning in the opening paragraphs, that's fine with me. I find the notion that he won an award for recognizing that there are competitive advantages possessed by large scale operations with substantial infrastructure in areas with cost advantages, and that people don't all like identical things without differentiation, humorous. It only reinforces that the award is largely political without regard to much in the way of actual insight. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sentence was " Albeit not for economics, but still, it's mostly a politically motivated commendation that has little merit to it." Which hardly seems worth quoting back to you when moments after you complain, assisted by selective quotation, about the point I make, you make it again. As to the award to Krugman being "humorous"... I refer the honourable gentleman to the saying I quoted earlier. Rd232 ^talk 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To try and turn things down a notch, allow me to remark that economics has managed to avoid many things that seem obviously true, and stick to things that seem obviously false (and still does). A lot of that is because of the difficulty of creating mathematically tractable models, and that was one of Krugman's achievements on that topic. If he'd merely made those points in prose, nobody would have heard of him. Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem irked to have your statement that I don't know the difference between Nobel prizes pointed out as being ridiculous when I made a clear distinction between them in the very paragraph you were responding to. There was no selective quotation involved. That Nobel prizes have become politicized is well established. That this article needs a good trimming and clean up is also well established. That you're taken with Krugman is also well established. Now, should we focus on the article, or do you want to discuss the dismal science, European socialism and the Nobel committee's collaboration with Michael Moore? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You made a distinction and then lumped things together, which irked me. And the lumping was wrong, because the scientific Nobel prizes have not become politicised. But this discussion is a waste of time. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I lumped the Nobel prizes together and then noted there were distinctions between them. I agree that this discussion is an absolute waste of time. Defending the indefensible doesn't make any sense so it's silly to try and claim that Nobel prizes of all types haven't become politicized. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the Econ Nobel has been given to any number of conservative/libertarian economists (Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, Vernon Smith -- I could go on), I don't really see what this politicization problem is, Child, in the case of economics. And you might find Krugman's conclusions "humorous", but what's really laughable is how you oversimplified them to the point where it sounds like you're actually attributing to Krugman a theory that Krugman proved wrong. Yakushima (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm just going by what the article y'all wrote says. "The Nobel Prize Committee stated that Krugman's main contribution had been to analyze the impact of economies of scale, combined with the assumption that consumers appreciate diversity." Many of us realized that there were advantages to having large scale operations with substantial infrastructure and that people don't all like the same thing. But if Krugman has helped others to realize the obvious, then kudos to him. And yes I'm selectively quoting the first part of the sentence, because the rest of it doesn't even make sense. It might have been helpful if Krugman had been outspoken on the housing bubble and other economic issues that have caused economic problems, but nobody's perfect I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it WP:SYNTH?

I wrote that Krugman has done much to stimulate renewed discussion of inflation targeting and liquidity traps. This got tagged for not having a citation. Gee, I thought I was only bringing up the obvious.

So I cited a paper by Ben Bernanke -- you've heard of him, right? he's famous for having been Krugman's boss, sort of, before he got demoted to running some country's central bank. And in that paper, Bernanke argued that Krugman was wrong about Japan being in a liquidity trap. How's that for citation and balance?

Now, the problem is: how do I avoid being tagged again, for WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR as I try to further substantiate?

On Google scholar, "liquidity.trap" brings up around 4500 hits. "liquidity.trap -krugman" brings up about 3400. From a limited sample, these 3400 seem to divide into two categories:

• those scattered sparsely over the decades prior to the Krugman, et al. "It's Baaack" article in Foreign Affairs, and
• those concentrated strongly in the years immediately following "It's Baaack", usually citing that article when you go and look at the source itself.

As an example of latter: in the very first work listed in that search [32], Krugman among those personally thanked, not just cited, by the author; the temporal distribution of its bibliography, where it touches on liquidity traps, is just what I expect. Same for the Bernanke paper I cited.

I didn't expect to find any other pattern, honestly.

But do I still have to find a secondary source noting this (to me) obvious fact, to avoid being tagged WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH or whatever? Where does it end? Yakushima (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just synth it's original research. Just state what's notable from the sources, which based on what you've said appears to be that Krugman has expressed concern over liquidity traps. Maybe go into some detail. Puffery about him being influential or stimulating debate is inappropriate and goes against policy unless it's discussed somewhere and not just your opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not "puffery", Child. It's a fact. It just happens to be a fact in a field you apparently know little or nothing about. To each his own: I know more about Krugman than most people, just as you (apparently) know more about things like food and sexuality and rubbernecking than most people. My question was whether I can present this as fact, without a secondary source saying that in so many words, and support it only with citations to works showing the temporal pattern of citation you'd expect if it were a fact. If the answer is "No" (could you please cite specifics from policy?) then I'll look around for some secondary source that says so. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you don't set forth judgments on statements without knowledge of the field. Yakushima (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you cite the replies and responses to Krugman's articles, those would be secondary sources, and would not be SYN or OR, as long as you craft an edit that reflects only what is said in the source. (BTW, most journal articles are secondary sources, only those that document, providing raw data, are primary sources. Articles that analyze are almost always secondary.) Even better would be some sort of survey paper, which would be a tertiary source, as it provides an overview of the field.

However, if you draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated in the source material (e.g. 'Krugman has stirred up debate, and reinvigorated research in the field' sourced to some replies to Krugman, but those replies do not explicitly state that he has stirred up debate), then that would be synthesis and would not be allowed (see WP:SYN for policy). LK (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've since added two more cites. One is from Cato Journal, a 2002 article saying in its introduction that important economists like Krugman and others are talking about liquidity traps again. The other one is from a book. It mentions the major names in the topic (Keynes, Fisher, etc.), all of whom were writing long ago, with the exception of Krugman "in latter days." I doubt I'm going to find a source in the econ literature saying Krugman restarted the debates, because, to them, it's obvious. His proposition that Japan was in a liquidity trap was quite controversial in the late 90s, and he's still talking about liquidity traps as being relevant now in this global recession, and people are still arguing with him. But I can't state the obvious unless it's a paraphrase from economists who are unlikely to state the obvious? (Perhaps because they are too busy arguing with him to turn to any of us and say, "Oh, by the way, for you laymen out there: he started all this.") What would you suggest then? Yakushima (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem very taken with Mr. Krugman, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a fan site. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing useful to contribute, silence has long been considered golden. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakushima, if you look in the literature section of most econ papers, you'll usually find something like 'since the seminal paper by XXX', 'following the widely cited paper by YYY' or 'in the controversy introduced by ZZZ'. Those types of statements can be cited to show the notability of Krugman's contributions. Anyway, the two sources you have cited are enough to show notability. Blog postings by notable economists are also acceptable to show notability, and are probably easier to search for. LK (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestion! "Liquidity traps, learning and stagnation" in European Economic Review refers to Krugman's "It's Baaack" as "a recent seminal discussion" of the liquidity trap. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.05.003 Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, Gruntler. "Seminal". Grr. Why didn't I think of that? I've been dredging around on Google Books, finding him described in terms like "most influential", "most visible", etc., in the context of academic liquidity trap discussion. And where I've found those, I've added cites. But I was still left with the feeling they don't quite add up to my wording, since those qualities hardly exclude the possibility that somebody else did the most to reignite that debate. (In the case of inflation targeting, that's not utterly impossible; see below.) But Gruntler has nailed it. Of course, now some twit's going to point out that "seminal" shares a word root with "semen", and contributing semen is all you need to be a father, therefore I can't say he did "much" until I demonstrate that Krugman persistently visited the Nobel Laureate Sperm Bank on this one, then helped raise the child. But a win is a win, right? On speculative attack theory, he was distinctly "seminal" with only one paper back in 1979, with (AFAIK) not much more to do with the field after that.

While I'm here: not to dignify Child's gibe with yet another response, but I actually do put some effort into trying to dig up dirt on Krugman. The problem with that quest is that 10,000 other minds, some of them undoubtedly sharper and with better research skills than mine, have been pursuing that grail even more ardently, and have already scoured the territory pretty thoroughly. Sure, we should document more of the obvious stuff. But I still try to find things on my own, even if it might be OR for Wikipedia. In fact, before checking this Talk page, I was in the middle of trying to figure out if maybe a member of the Bank of Japan had proposed inflation targeting for Japan before Krugman, that maybe Krugman had read something like that in the Financial Times, and the next day started elaborating it. Unfortunately, the probability is low and the evidence scant: in one paper [33], a date of May 25 for an FT article by one G. Tett, where Krugman's first publication I can find is only dated "May". The Wayback Machine doesn't go back that far on his MIT site, so that's no help. It's unlikely that Google Scholar would turn up a draft paper citing "Japan's Trap" with a date before May 25th. Google Blog search's date-range feature seems to be broken, under my browser at least. So I'm giving up.

But, really: there's no real dirt here, because I don't think Krugman has never made any such claims. Even if that BoJ governor did first propose inflation targeting for Japan's slump, and even if Krugman first got thinking about it because of that, and wrote up something in the five days left in May after that FT story, I don't think he's ever claimed he was first with this proposal. How ideas rise and fall is a topic that fascinates me, and for that alone I enjoy pursuing it.

Also while I'm here: although Krugman's May '98 "Japan's Trap" doesn't cite anyone except possibly Hicks (1937) on inflation targeting (he's right that Makin [34] was almost there, since he identified negative real interest rates as a big problem), it seems there was some discussion on inflation targeting a little earlier than Krugman [35], by some very good economists, including work by Adam Posen (who, I see now, actually misread "Japan's Trap" as only recommending more monetary explansion). But they were talking about Sweden and New Zealand, bit players in the world economy relative to Japan, so maybe it didn't get much attention. My statement that Krugman did much to stimulate debate on liquidity traps and inflation targeting is open to attack on the inflation targeting front. I believe it still holds up, however, and please don't accuse me of moving the goal posts simply because I edited the section to make his role in the debate on inflation targeting a separate (but obviously closely related) topic.

I think this section could use a little more work, elaborating a little about the responses to his views on these subjects. There is now a range of sources (theoretically and ideologically) from which to draw such responses, including some handy links from page numbers to Google Books pages. It's been fascinating for me to revisit this debate, being a Japan resident, and having been directly affected by the slump while reading these debates, and having learned more about the relevant economics since that time. But maybe I should back off and let other people figure out a better treatment, since I seem to overdo things. Like, well, this Talk page submission, for one. Yakushima (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Economists use that word, 'seminal', in papers a lot. I'm not sure why, maybe we like the sound of it. Anyway, it means: "Highly influential, especially in some original way, and providing a basis for future development or research" (from Wiktionary). LK (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you all have read and digested this several times, but here is this information connector for chewing on again and possible use in the article. Nothing like things from the horses mouth to inform as to how a person is digesting and thinking and changing ideas about information. How it is handy then for something, sourcing, quoting, etc- [36] - skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Highly technical notes only understandable by people familiar with the academic literature. Whats your point? LK (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Seemed pretty simplistic to me, or to put it another way, is economics really only understandable to certain people and is it really that technical?? I doubt it- mostly only if in a if you believe some of the premises, the rest is easy, way.., but a lot of points are brought up especially about New Keynesian models, his attitude toward those aspects, and other things. skip sievert (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ecnomics, not "that technical"? Gee, I guess Uncle Miltie was just trying to intimidate people, with all those differential equations running even in his footnotes [37]. Funny, but there's a lot of math in Krugman's work, too. What are you saying, Skip? That this is all just a smokescreen to confuse the layman? Yakushima (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, but that is not the way I would put it. Economics is not a science. It is using data... collated as to technique in a science looking framework. You can make anything make sense in that way, even abstract concepts that make no sense, like labor theory of value etc. - Economics is purely a social control device, and that is about all. 'A fair number of mainstream economists have argued that assumptions about the character of economic reality in the neoclassical economic paradigm are fundamentally flawed. It is also significant that those who have made the most convincing case that the mathematical theories used by neoclassical economists cannot be viewed as scientific have consistently been trained economists. For example, Alfred Eichner in Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science offers the following commentary on the discipline of economics as a social system:

'The refusal to abandon the myth of the market as a self-regulating system is not the result of a conspiracy on the part of the “establishment” in economics. It is not even a choice that any individual economist is necessarily aware of making. Rather it is the way economics operates as a social system—including the way new members of the establishment are selected—retaining its place within the larger society by perpetuating a set of ideas which have been found useful by that society, however dysfunctional the same set of ideas may be from a scientific understanding of how the economic system works. In other words, economics is unwilling to adhere to the epistemological principles which distinguish scientific from other types of intellectual activity because this might jeopardize the position of economists within the larger society as the defender of the dominant faith.' --- But that is another subject [38] Sorry about the length of that response. I do not get that Krugman brings out so much angst in people. Yes, I think he is boring, and totally out of touch, but that is my opinion, which is not notable here, or not very. - skip sievert (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Generic Heading

Our proven serial plagiarist [39] Vision Thing has returned with a flurry of edits. AGF doesn't apply to flagrant, unrepentant violators of international copyright law. And this article needs to be protected from plagiarism -- can you imagine the damage to Wikipedia of a story like "Wikipedia bio of Nobel laureate edited by plagiarist"? I've brought this to the attention of one admin, but there's been no action so far. Maybe it's time to push. Yakushima (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is to take a step back, cool off and take a look at things from different perspective. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A perspective where copying article text verbatim from copyrighted sources without attribution is NOT a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and copyright law? I don't do those kinds of drugs, VT. Yakushima (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To best of my knowledge I have never plagiarized anything. Anyway, don't use this talk page as a forum. -- Vision Thing -- 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you must not know what plagiarism is. Can you give us a definition? Can you tell us why the edits catalogued here [40] do not match that definition? Yakushima (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as for not using the Talk page as a forum, VT: don't wikilawyer me. The first words at that policy are "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." We can't give Paul Krugman appropriate encyclopedic treatment with a known, proven plagiarist like you editing it. I consider it part of the job to make sure that international copyright violators stay the hell away from this article, and any BLP, and Wikipedia in general for that matter. Plagiarists endanger the entire project. Yakushima (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that this edit by VT replaces significant context with something somewhat mangled from this source [41]. The source says "'This was an advisory panel that had no function that I was aware of,' Mr. Krugman said today. 'My later interpretation is that it was all part of the way they built an image. All in all, I was just another brick in the wall.'" Notice how Vt's edit left out the key "my later interpretation", making it seem that Krugman was knowingly complicit in making Enron look good. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it resembles the way that he conventiently left out "perfectly respectable" in The Economist's characterization of Krugman's views (see above), where he also removed the quote marks to make it look like the Economist's words were his own. Ideologically inconvenient wording gets dropped, and labor is saved by using the words of others without attribution. He's right where he left off. Old habits die hard, I guess. Yakushima (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that it was easier for you to write this comment than to do this. -- Vision Thing -- 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean where you lift your ostensibly paraphrased wording almost directly from the Paul Krugman quote, in the source, including the exact words "later interpretation"? Rather as you tricked people above, with removing the quote-marks around some verbatim wording from The Economist? Don't talk down to us about what's easier or harder to do on Wikipedia, VT. I've shown where you've lifted entire passages from books, from blogs, from an online encyclopedia of economics. Without attribution. The ultimate editor labor-saving device. It's very easy. It's also illegal. Yakushima (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He's also baaack -- to his old WP:PRESERVE violations rationalized on flimsy grounds. Note this edit [42], deletion of a statement supported by a secondary source, with the edit summary, "this is no praise":

Now here's a quote from Tomasky's review of Conscience of a Liberal

The second element of Krugman's account that gives it special value is its commitment to accurate history even when some fudging might be in order for the sake of political expediency [my emph. added -- Yakushima] ....[43]

Gee, Krugman's historically accurate even where it would be politically convenient to make nice and pretend? That's not praise? What is it, then?

Tomasky again [44]

Many liberals would name Paul Krugman of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism.

I haven't signed up to see the whole review, but I don't have to. Michael Tomasky is clearly a liberal [45], and I find no signs that he didn't like Conscience of a Liberal, only signs that he praised it -- praised it extravagantly, if anything (but there might be qualifications I don't see.)

Vision Thing wrote that Tomasky's view of the book was "no praise". I found praise instantly. Either Vision Thing didn't read the review, but characterized it anyway -- which is lying -- or he did read it, and decided to turn it 180 degrees in a WP:PRESERVE-violating edit. Vision Thing is, in short, a liar either way, not just a serial violator of WP:PRESERVE. But what do you expect of an unabashed plagiarist who, when faced with his clear and repeated violations, simply pretends he doesn't see anything? Yakushima (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And Vision Thing added this:

Krugman also argued that since the time of Ronald Reagan, who according to him had "sympathy for racism," Republicans owe their electoral successes to their ability to "exploit the race issue to win political dominance of the South.

Now, if you look at the full quote, it's clear that Krugman's talking about the shift in the South from Dixiecrat to Republican -- a shift that happened long ago, generally described as execution of the Southern strategy and long since admitted by GOP operatives involved [46]. By leaving out a past tense verb in the original quote, VT makes it sound like the GOP still uses racial appeals to gain ground, politically. Here's the original.

"... movement conservatives were able to take over the Republican party, and move its policies sharply to the right. In most of the country this rightward shift alienated voters, who gradually moved toward the Democrats. But Republicans were nevertheless able to win presidential elections, and eventually gain control of Congress, because they were able to exploit the race issue to win political dominance of the South." (p.182)

I would say that Krugman still feels that the GOP uses race in courting southern conservative voters -- in fact I made an edit to that very effect. But if you interpret "electoral successes" as meaning progress in converting voters to the GOP, rather than maintenance of the status quo, Vision Thing's present tense in "Republicans owe their electoral successes" isn't supported by the quote. Krugman has recently referred to the GOP's use of race, but look how he did it:

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the 'birther' movement ....

And the "birthers" are strongly concentrated in the South and the Bible Belt, where the GOP remains strong.[47] Which is to say, if Krugman's analysis is right, the GOP is only playing defense. I'd say it's a fair edit only if you change the tense, while at least vaguely delineating the period of actual "electoral successes". Which I'm about to do -- much as it disgusts me to be fine-tuning the wording of a serial plagiarist and serial WP:PRESERVE violator. Yakushima (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys cool off the rhetoric? This thread isn't useful as a discussion because it's so filled with personal attacks. Let's all try to stay focused on the content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He's a serial plagiarist, Child. That's not a personal attack, it's a fact you can check by looking at the evidence, both on this Talk page and where I've since provided much more detail about much worse violations, but probably only a small fraction of the total[48]. Since returning to action, he's already done one edit with wording suspiciously similar to the source he was quoting. That's a concern for the quality of this article, not to mention the reputation of Wikipedia generally. Imagine the repercussions for Wikipedia's reputation of a Krugman blog entry mentioning that his Wikipedia biography is being edited by a serial plagiarist -- against whom there's still been no action by admins. You say I should focus on the content? I'm very focused on the content now -- especially where Vision Thing is changing it, because he's already pulled off at least one WP:PRESERVE violation, lying to boot, and might start adding plagiarisms. Go look at the evidence. Get concerned about something that really matters. Or go back to polishing your food and sexuality -- maybe it needs a good pic of a bikini top made of raisins or something. Yakushima (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that you are probably going to be blocked from editing and rightfully so, if you continue as you are doing Yakushima. You do not single out editors in discussion page headings as you did with an editor. I agree with C.O.M. here. I suggest removing this entire section thread. It is not appropriate [49]. I suggest then that this entire section along with my present comment, be removed from the article discussion by the next editor that cares to, as it is not a good display of cooperative editing and is an embarrassing display of negative interaction. So, just remove it, please. The heading does violate basic policy guideline, as does any kind any kind of personal attack on Wikipedia as to editing discussion. You are not supposed to name an editor as to focus on in a discussion page heading as you did He's back, and then going on to castigate that editor with your opinion of them, is not good, and violates guidelines. - skip sievert (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The heading doesn't name or even attack an editor. And since the thread contains substantive discussion, I've renamed it to avoid possibility of deletion. Specific and current plagiarism/misquoting issues relating to the Paul Krugman article do belong here. However the general plagiarism issues, Yakushima, don't belong here, but somewhere like WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI if you want to take it further (though many of the ones you raise seem to be from 2006). Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I still see no particular value in this thread as mostly it is directed in a personal attack mode as to one editor and is inappropriate. The heading was specifically referring to one editor in a demeaning way He's back, as the body of the post immediately confirms in the first few sentences, so the above description is not accurate and is also misleading as to what is written in this section in my opinion. This section is setting more bad tone to the discussion page, and I suggest still its removal along with my current comment here, by the next editor that feels this is a violation of guidelines and that this discussion page needs to get back on track. skip sievert (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mere "personal attack" if it's a fact, and it's not irrelevant to the article. Plagiarism of a BLP isn't exactly an improvement, and now we have to watch out for it. Having to check his edits for plagiarism gets in the way of improving the article. Rd232 is right that I made a mistake about dates -- in working backward, I must have accidentally ended up in 2006 for some of VT's edits, perhaps proving little more than that some people lift from Wikipedia, even in writing books. But on this very talk page, we have one example; I link to others, and where VT's wording was identical to between Ludwig von Mises on Wikipedia and a biography in the Encyclopedia of Economics and Liberty, it's identical to the wording back in 2005 [50], before VT was editing Wikipedia. Plagiarism is infuriating (if you're not angry about it, better ask yourself why not), and in my anger I make mistakes. But let's not forget that there's been provocation here: lots of WP:PRESERVE violations on top of plagiarism on top of decidedly fringe (anarcho-capitalist) ideological leanings in a large proportion of edits, both to articles and talk pages. It just makes working on this BLP harder. Unnecessarily so. Yakushima (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No excuse, sorry. Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade No personal attacks because that is problematic. Again, best course is to remove this entire section including this (my current) comment, in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakushima, you're well over the top in personal attacks against other editors. I'm going to remind you to assume good faith or leave the article altogether. Scribner (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your not helping now Scribner. That was a mistake to comment in that way. Again, this whole section along with this my current comment needs filing away from the page as in being archived or deleted now. Please no one else respond negatively now in this hoped to be deleted soon discussion page segment. Please someone now delete this entire section. skip sievert (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakushima has committed personal attacks against several editors, including myself. I'm not commenting on this particular section but an Yakushima's behavior in general. Yakushima, don't threaten me again. Scribner (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to delete this section, which is not merely "personal attack" since the criticism is based on some evidence, albeit it's not desperately relevant. And tempers have got heated on this page before, let's not start fingerpointing - what an incredible waste of time. The section also has relevant stuff (relevant to the article) so how about just moving on? Rd232 ^talk 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Suspicion of plagiarism should be reported to the the administrator's noticeboard[51], suspicions of a sockpuppet should also be reported to the administrator's noticeboard[52], and inappropriate editing can be discussed by setting up an RfC/U[53]. May I suggest that those would be the most productive routes to follow. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of bringing an end to the conflicts here, I propose this:

• Any new instances of plagiarism from a currently active editor that are reported to my talk page will result in a block on the plagiarizing editor.
• Any plagiarism currently in the article will be removed. Anyone restoring that plagiarism will be dealt with in the previously specified manner.
• This discussion ends.

Sound good? Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because you were actively involved in editing this page and, in my opinion, you took sides so you are not neutral. If you had suggested that you will be blocking people for making personal attacks your proposal would have had a little more objectivity in my eyes. -- Vision Thing -- 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with this page, so if violations of NPA are becoming rampant I am perfectly willing to deal with that as well. I understand your objection but I will continue to deal with plagiarism just as I deal with vandalism, regardless of whether or not I am a participating editor. If you object to any administrative act I take, you are always welcome to visit the appropriate noticeboard, but this isn't really the place for such a digression. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okrent

Why was Okrent's criticism "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance" removed? Krugman is well know for his personal attacks on people who disagree with him. -- Vision Thing -- 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gruntler wrote above "Criticism of the form 'Krugman's not a nice person.' ... Generally does not belong in a BLP. Illustrated by Okrent's quote: 'when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.' The quote is about Okrent's dealings with Krugman, not about the column. We wouldn't put "his coworkers found him difficult to get along with" in a BLP. I think this ought to be removed." Rd232 ^talk 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is about whether Krugman is a nice person. Okent was New York Times ombudsman. His job was to deal with readers complaints about articles published in NYT. [54] This criticism talks about general behavior of Krugman when accuracy of his comments was challenged. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As much of Krugman's notability is as a journalist, clearly a major figure like Okrent's opinion is worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the context of the quote in Newsweek. Okrent: "I tried to be an honest broker..." Okrent is talking about when he was trying to write about disputes between Krugman and critics. Basically, this quote consists of Okrent complaining that Krugman made his (Okrent's) job hard--Okrent would ask Krugman about stuff and Krugman's answers weren't what Okrent was looking for.

Okrent's opinion of the Krugman's actual column is already included, I don't think we're doing Okrent a disservice by not quoting him even more extensively.Gruntler (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for inclusion even though it's negative opinion material. Okrent's criticism was one of a hand full I felt worthy enough to leave in when the criticism section was removed and criticism worked into the article. What I'm seeing now is wholesale cleansing. I'll join in a mediation against Gruntler's crusade. Scribner (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, if this is a widespread and notable POV, surely some person can be found who said something similar in a context which is unambiguously *about the column* or about Krugman's writing in general. It's not like the article must contain this particular quote or nothing at all. Gruntler (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be widespread criticism. It's notable criticism and it should be included. These hair splitting objections to anything that isn't fawning are getting ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Okrent quote currently included ("the disturbing habit...") is certainly notable: it was part of Okrent's final column at the NYT in 2005 and kicked up a decent controversy. The quote currently excluded ("when someone challenged Krugman...") is an entirely different quote buried late in a long Newsweek piece in 2009--it's not notable just because the first quote was. A google search involving Krugman and Okrent brings up a whole slew of hits regarding the 2005 controversy. It's hard to find anyone who noticed the 2009 quote unless you actually input the quote verbatim. The phrase "he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance" gets 19 hits from google (~5000 before google omits "entries very similar to the 19 already displayed.") So I see no reason to think that the excluded quote is particularly notable.Gruntler (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Enron

Yakushima's changes to Enron subsection introduced number of OR violations.

• "Luskin refers to "puff-pieces", but doesn't substantiate that plural form with citations. It also repeats the claim that Krugman was paid $50,000, but to support that claim, links to a statement of Krugman's that says only he'd been offered that amount for meetings and other events that, in the end, didn't take place."
• "An article, "The Ascent of E-Man", often cited as Krugman's "puff-piece" for Enron does not provide evidence that, when simply paid enough, Krugman alters his political or economic views"
• "The piece is consistent with his views in recent decades about the appropriate role of markets."
• "As recently as 2009, conservative and libertarian op-eds were mentioning Krugman's Enron link, but not naming any of the conservatives -- several of whom were categorically journalists at the time (Larry Kudlow, Peggy Noonan, Irwin Stelzer and William Kristol) -- who were in the pay of Enron, and for longer than Krugman."

He also used a blog as a source. [55] -- Vision Thing -- 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• We're getting WP:OR interpreted by someone who apparently doesn't realize when he's plagiarizing from The Economist, and who can't substantiate his claim that Krugman holds views "far" from the mainstream? All of my statements were properly backed with citations, all provide balance against the claims made by Krugman's critics. I used a popular blog to back up the statement a critic of Krugman's didn't consider his Enron piece a puff-piece. Why is that not adequate substantiation for the claim? Most of the criticisms of Krugman about his relationship with Enron were on blogs, or at least started on blogs. Should those criticisms be thrown out too? You can't have it both ways, VT. The last quote you claim as OR was definitely no more than a restatement of what's said in the sources I cite. If there was one I'd throw out, among those sources, as insufficiently unreliable, it would be the one from the mis-named rightwing Accuracy in Media, but even they castigated Kudlow, Noonan, Stelzer and Kristol. Really, VT, what do you do here, except slow things down when they aren't to your (ideological) liking? (And use The Economist's words as if they were your own?) Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of blogs in BLP articles is forbidden. [56]. In the last sentence you provided sources for ""As recently as 2009, conservative and libertarian op-eds were mentioning Krugman's Enron link," but not for "but not naming any of the conservatives". That these op-eds are criticizing Krugman while omitting conservatives is you analysis not present in any of the sources you gave. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, according your interpretation of that section, VT, I can use what Krugman has said about the Enron relationship in his writing on his blog, and elsewhere, but I can't even supply citations or quotes (direct or indirect) from the blogs from which this particular attack was launched? It seems the attack to which Krugman responded was launched almost entirely from blogs. So how do you feel about just getting rid of the entire Enron section, then, since none of the sources meet your (supposedly single, not double) standard. As for the fact that Krugman's relationship with Enron is still mentioned in attacks on him, without any similar attacks on better-paid conservatives in those same pieces -- actually, at least one of the sources I cite DOES make EXACTLY that analysis, so it's not MY analysis -- it's just a glaringly obvious continuation of a phenomenon already analyzed for us. But of course, missing that fact is exactly the kind of mistake we should expect from someone who uses a source's words as if they were his own, and who flings accusations about Krugman like "far from the mainstream" without every backing up the claim with relevant fact. Yakushima (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use Krugman's writing on his blog but you can't use other blogs. I apologize if I missed the source that criticizes conservatives for attacking only Krugman about the Enron relationship. Can you provide link here? -- Vision Thing -- 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide you the link? Bring it to you? Would you like it on a silver platter, perhaps? Why don't you read the (now-restored) article on the economist Paul Krugman. Turn to the relevant section, find the relevant passage, and its citations, and read the sources for yourself. Instead of what you clearly do all too often, and not just here: deletion, without discussion, in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Yakushima (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakushima, please refer to WP:SOURCES abd WP:SPS for policy on this issue. Roughly speaking, editorials and blogs are not acceptable sources except as a source about the person's opinion. They should not be included in a BLP unless there a good reason to note that particular person's opinion (eg. Economics Nobel prize winner praises a person as 'economic genius' in his blog.) An exception is that the self-published work (incl blog) of the subject of the article is considered a reliable source for details about that person, unless it is unduly self-serving. So, blog by XXX offering that 'I have 2 children' is an acceptable source in article about XXX. LK (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I read those policies as saying that blogs should not be used as supporting RS for statements made by the BLP itself. E.g., if Asymmetrical Information (the Jane Galt blog) describes Krugman's "The Ascent of E-Man" as "idiotic millenial blather" (which it pretty much does), the text of the WP BLP for Krugman cannot say, as if it were a verified fact, "The piece Krugman wrote for Fortune mentioning Enron was idiotic millenial blather", using that blog entry as a supporting citation. Look: can we agree that Jimbo Wales is a living person? Can we agree that, if there's any BLP on Wikipedia where it would be highly unlikely to find a blog cite (under your interpretation of these policies), it would be his? So why do I find this [57], a blog cite, in his BLP? Is it a "source for Jimbo Wales' opinion"? Not primarily, though he is quoted -- actually, its main purpose is to describe his purported actions, and the citation of the blog is used to verify the claim that a blogger said Wales had performed these actions. It was included because what was written at the blog became notable. Very much so, in fact. Or let's take Andrew Sullivan, still living last I checked, and whose blog entries figure significantly in the treatment of Krugman's Enron relationship in this BLP. Why does Sullivan's BLP cite two other [58][59], arguably highly unflattering blog entries that, as I understand your interpretation, ought not to be cited? Are you saying we're not supposed to cite non-RSes that happened to make a notable BLP event notable in the first place? As support for statements saying, basically, "thus and such was said about (or by) the person whose BLP this is"? No matter how notable the non-RS entry itself became? Am I reading you right? And are you sure you've got it right? Yakushima (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a general point, non-RSs may be referenced directly if it is relevant and necessary, which would be demonstrated for instance by RSs discussing a particular non-RS. More generally, problems on other articles are... problems on other articles. By all means go fix them, but discussing them here isn't helpful. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I pointed out were not "problems on other articles", . They are appropriate citations of blogs to substantiate what's been said in notable controversies about the subjects of BLP. Go read them if you don't believe me. I discuss blog cites in the BLPs of Wales and Sullivan not because they are problems, but because they are solutions. Yakushima (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what Yakushima has tried to do with the Enron section, but the net effect seems merely to be to overemphasise what was already a violation of WP:UNDUE. I don't think the issue merits more than a paragraph even by WP standards - and can you imagine any serious non-WP encyclopedia even mentioning this non-issue? More constructively, perhaps, if we can't find more Consulting work to expand the section with, maybe we should develop a Public Image section or something like that. That would give slightly more latitude to include ongoing mention of the Enron thing as well some space for a topic that can be developed (it's a bit scattered through the article at the moment). Does that sound a reasonable idea? Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone (IP address only) deleted all but the (problematic) Accuracy in Media cite of the last paragraph. After I write this, I'm going to restore it.

In the meantime: This is not "a non-issue", Rd232. As I backed up with citations to major metropolitican dailies, it's a guilt-by-association smear being used in mainstream press commentary even as recently as last month -- i.e., over a decade after Krugman wrote this supposed Enron "puff-piece", and about 7 years after certain major commentators on the Right gave Kudlow, Kristol, Selzer and Noonan a pass (not to mention some conservative economists who worked for Enron), apparently deciding among themselves to not mention them in connection with Enron ever again.

Do we need to "dredge this up"? As long as commentators in the mainstream press are singling out Krugman for shabby treatment in connection with Enron, I think we do. People still in grade school at the time of that Fortune article, and for whom the Enron debacle was distant thunder when they were in high school, are now in college, reading Krugman and/or reading about him. I'm sure some of them need to look up "Enron" when they first encounter mention of this dead company in print. At that point in their reading, they might already be thinking, "Krugman -- an economist apparently notable for being on the take from a corrupt corporation." They would undoubtedly appreciate hearing something like the whole story, in a balanced treatment, including the status of an on-going smear of Krugman (which might, after all, be their first encounter with the name "Enron"), when they consult Wikipedia.

It's hardly a violation of WP:UNDUE if the popular press is itself hosting notably undue weight to a position, is it?

As for putting this discussion under "Consulting work", I've always thought that was ridiculous, and was going to propose "Controversies". ("Public image" is inappropriately singular -- there are several "public images" of Krugman.) Krugman has been in quite a few notable controversies, and practically courts controversy. I see nothing wrong with documenting the more notable of the criticisms of him on Wikipedia, even if it would ordinarily be "undue weight" to mention similar criticisms of an economist or journalist who had a lower public profile than Krugman's. A U.S. Supreme Court justice once said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Notwithstanding my disagreements with Vision Thing (and his glaring serial violations of WP:PRESERVE, and what's increasingly looking like an pattern of plagiarism, not just a random slip here and there), he's right that the article should have been including negative views. Negative views of Paul Krugman are rife, many are notable, some of them are even notably entertained by some decidedly non-WP:FRINGE people (which is sometimes how those negative views became notable in the first place), those views figure into his biography because they figure into his life (death threats against him not least among the life-changing factors), and therefore they should be covered here. Yakushima (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should delete the entire section. I am saying that maybe we should be thinking about summarising it at about the length of one paragraph, rather than expanding in such detail. It is currently longer than the two subsections on New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography, the major work for which he won the Nobel Prize! That doesn't seem wrong to you? To me it seems the definition of WP:UNDUE. Perhaps we could post at WP:NPOVN to get some external input. As for public image - as a section title that certainly leaves room for exploring different images among different publics. Since the relevance seems to be more in the ongoing coverage than in the non-issue incident, it would seem better covered in a section like that. Rd232 ^talk 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)::

I agree with Rd232 here, it doesn't deserve nearly the amount of space in this article that it's getting. I tried cutting it down. If you really feel like including a full discussion of the issue is important, maybe you should consider making a separate article and just linking to it from here. Compare the WP treatment of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates which is FAR more notable than Krugman's dealings with Enron. (Personally I don't think making a new article worthwhile for the Enron thing but YMMV.) Gruntler (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gruntler,

Shrinking is OK. Amputation is not. In pretty definite violation of WP:PRESERVE, you simply deleted a bunch of paragraphs, which also deleted the bulk of the citations I'd come up with in support of what I'd written. Those took a lot of work, and all are relevant, even if the acceptability of some of them is still under dispute here.

Now, if you'd briefly paraphrased my extensive quote from "The Ascent of E-Man", you could have done some serious shrinking right there. And perhaps much of the rest could have been significantly reduced. But you actually *threw out* the cite for "The Ascent of E-Man". Why? If you left it only as a footnote, the section would be a few characters longer. But for readers' purposes of making their own judgments about an essay Sullivan called a "glowing puff-piece", it would also be considerably better: readers could easily find the source mentioned and come to their own conclusions. (As it is, the title of that essay is not found in the writings of those critics who called it a puff-piece, and I haven't seen it linked in those sources either. Hm. You can suppress information if you're Andrew Sullivan, but please: not on Wikipedia.)

I will not revert your edit. When I get time, I'll go over the section as it was before you simply slashed (not "shrunk") most of it, and restore as many (non-problematic) citations as I can, with much briefer development of the topic. Yakushima (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232,

You say that "we should be thinking about summarising it at about the length of one paragraph, rather than expanding in such detail."

I favor shortening it. My work is first draft quality, and first drafts are sometimes a lot longer than final product.

But you also say "It is currently longer than the two subsections on New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography, the major work for which he won the Nobel Prize! That doesn't seem wrong to you?"

Not necessarily. In fact: Paul Krugman was smeared in the press (by omission of the names of conservatives more deeply involved) as a former Enron crony only a few weeks ago. And this has been going on for years. It will probably continue. By contrast, I'd say that most people first heard the term "economic geography" only when the news about PK's Nobel broke, and most of them have since forgotten it. If somebody's notable for things, it makes sense to balance the treatment of what he's notable for, in proportion to mentions of those things. Lots of people are still hearing that PK was Enron-consultant slime. And most of those people would never understand what he did in economic geography no matter how much you explained it to them. But unfair criticism? That, they can understand.

Then you say, "To me it seems the definition of WP:UNDUE." The actual definition is quite long. I'm re-reading it. It says, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." In comparing the Enron-Krugman uproar with economic geography, you're comparing apples and oranges. Minority views about economic geography (there is at least one relatively reputable economist, Barkley Rosser, who disputes that Krugman's work was really so fundamental and original [60]) probably don't have much place, if any, in this BLP. For one thing, Rosser's comment doesn't seem to have had any effect on Krugman's life, and this article is about Krugman's life -- including sources of income and notable controversies over them.

By contrast, tens of millions of people have heard that Krugman was an Enron consultant, and some are still hearing it in the mainstream press (see my recently-deleted cites), and without acquaintance with (or diminishing memory of) the full story. The number who have even heard of Barkley Rosser, not to speak of his criticisms of Krugman on economic geography, is microscopic by comparison. To a great extent, notability is a numbers game, and we've got two game arenas here: economics as a profession, and the public sphere proper. In Krugman's case, they are linked in a way that has, itself, become a controversy: whether he abuses his credentials as an economist in support of his ideas. This BLP can't escape controversy, especially if Krugman keeps running toward controversy.

Again, if this were the biography of someone notable only as an economist, I think you'd have an excellent point. There are lesser-known economists than Krugman who consulted for Enron, and I wouldn't consider mention of those relationships worthy of more than a sentence in their BLPs. But to your average reader of this article, there's a lot more to Paul Krugman, and even if some of those average readers buy his book on economic geography, most of them will shelve it upon seeing the first double integral.

Maybe you have a distaste for mudfights, or you don't want to see Krugman's BLP besmirched by too much mud. Well, Paul Krugman clearly has an undiminished taste for mudfights (see his latest blog exchange with Niall Ferguson), and has become very notable for it. We'd be remiss in not giving that aspect of his life its due. After all, this is a BLP, not a shrine to some dead Nobel laureate. Paul Krugman is America's spectacular Yellowstone National Park of public intellectuals. In economics, he gives us these awe-inspring and unpredictable geyser-gushes of technical brilliance, but in politics he also gives us those pools of bubbling mud. Get used to it. Everybody else has. And let's write about. Everybody else has. Yakushima (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you make some good points, but they would be better points if I was arguing for complete removal of the section. An encyclopedia's job is not merely to reflect what people already know and think is important - it's to tell them things they don't know. So over-focussing on a single issue because it is widely known is considered WP:UNDUE, even if the policy doesn't say that in so many words (policy and practice on WP don't always match up exactly). Anyway, Gruntler's cutting down of the section, with my tweaks, leaves as much detail as is needed I think, with the exception of the "ongoing issue" aspect. That would be the last para of the pre-cutting down version, which we could simply go and get back. However I still think it would be better to refocus the whole thing as part of a "public image" (or "media representation" or something) section (rather than "controversies", which is a horrible section title), because it is the ongoing issue aspect which makes the thing worth mentioning in this much detail. That would entail rewriting it entirely from the perspective not of "historical incident, still mentioned" but of "continuing media comment on historical incident". Rd232 ^talk 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the most relevant part of WP:UNDUE is "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. 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." Granted, there are certainly different opinions one can hold about the relative weight of Krugman's academic versus his popular work, but it's hard to see the Enron thing as anything more than a very minor part of his career as a columnist. Only serious political junkies are aware of the issue at all.

The citations of recent mentions the Krugman-Enron connection seem to me to be just snide passing mentions of the subject in articles about other topics--I don't see any serious energy being devoted to the topic now. Certainly Krugman's "public image" is dominated by other things so a section on "public image" or whatever would incorporate a lot of things from other sections entailing a fairly major rewrite. That said I agree on "controversies" being a terrible title though I don't have concrete ideas for improvement.Gruntler (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have NPOV-tagged the Consulting section. Tagging individual suspected violations -- and I'll admit there could be several -- is something I think should be left to others who actually want to work on the article (as opposed to just summarily deleting work they don't like.) Yakushima (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify that? Rd232 ^talk 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will: I was referring to Vision Thing. After reviewing a lot of VT's history of editing articles, ripping stuff out of articles is clearly his favorite thing to do. Second is tagging them to reflect anarcho-capitalist ideology. Plagiarism is perhaps running third or fourth. (The uncertainty is because I'm still not sure whether the bulk of his actual informative contributions are plagiarism -- he's been at it for years and I haven't looked at more than a small, recent fraction of it; also, sometimes looks original with him at first, but Googling a different way turns up the original; and sometimes he's copied from another Wikipedia article with some plagiarism, and it's not clear whether he knew it was plagiarized). There: is that clear enough for you? Yakushima (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How would people feel about folding the Enron issue into the "Columnist" section? The main (only?) reason for the Enron controversy to be important is that it could have affected his journalism. Gruntler (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you asked Krugman "Is it a significant fact in your life that you endure attacks of varying levels of severity from your political opponents?", he'd answer, "Wanna see my collection of death-threat notes?" If he hadn't gone after Enron later in an NYT column, he would attacked them in some other venue, sooner or later. And these same charges of hypocrisy and conflict of interest (not to mention Jonah Goldberg's "crapweasel" appellation) would then have been leveled against him.

Krugman was not really a columnist before NYT. There's not much pattern to the publication dates at Salon, Fortune, etc. [61]. And I've never noticed him being described as a columnist elsewhere. Except for the actual collapse of Enron, the events giving rise to the (ongoing) characterization of him as some flunky who wrote puff-pieces for Enron all transpired before he joined the NYT. While he criticized Enron in his column, I don't think he ever defended himself about the relationship in the column itself. So I think making this a subtopic of "Columnist" is a stretch.

Like it or not, he's a controversialist and we probably need something like a Controversies section. Alternatively, we could start subdividing "Political views" and somehow shoe-horn the Enron mudfight into some section like "Deregulation". I have trouble seeing how that would work, though. Without some confinement to a section devoted to them, controversies will just metastasize throughout the article.

Would this mean the article will perpetually have a "Neutrality of this section is disputed" tag on that section? Yes, probably. But isn't that to be expected, in Krugman's case? Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia, but the best it can hope for is to be encylopedic, most of the time. Yakushima (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The "columnist" section covers material going back to 1994 and includes references to publications where he only published a handful of pieces. So you're right, "columnist" isn't appropriate as a descriptor for what he was doing before NYT and in fact doesn't seem appropriate as a title for contents of the section. Perhaps "Commentary"? "Career as commentator"? Do you think Enron would fit into a section with that name?

WP:CRIT suggests that it's fine to integrate criticism into the article if it doesn't disrupt the flow. At this point, I think that could be done with Enron, but if you think there are other controversies that deserve treatment I would probably change my mind. Gruntler (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and moreover (IIRC), "Criticisms" sections are discouraged, and "Controversies" flirts dangerously with being a kind of "Criticisms", given how much flak has been directed at Krugman. But there's a critical (as it were) difference here: there are notable controversies started by Krugman.

Who started the one about the Brian Arthur and the origins of increasing returns economics? If all economists had just let slide Mitchell Waldrop's slightly Galileo Gambit-style characterization of Brian Arthur -- and don't scientists usually just wash their hands of any responsibility for debunking bad science popularization? -- few of us would have been the wiser about Arthur's narcissistic pose and the Waldrop's hagiography that captured it. I know I loved that book -- for a while. (Even Wikipedia is falling down on this count -- Arthur's BLP speaks of Arthur's increasing-returns contributions as "seminal", leading in part to an anti-trust judgment against Microsoft. But the two supposedly supporting citations actually undermine those claims: neither says anything about the anti-trust judgment. One of the cites -- Kenneth Arrow's endorsement of Arthur as a great refiner of increasing returns theory -- seems to have been supplied by Krugman himself, as suppporting material for his smackdown of Arthur's more sweeping claims. And people complain about how Krugman's Wikipedia BLP is "fawning".) Who went out there on Slate and delivered an apparently deserved bashing of Arthur, Waldrop and the New Yorker, when no other economist bothered? Krugman -- who feels that economics does have a responsibility to make sense to the educated reading public. None other than Arrow criticized Krugman for the way he did it, but at least he did it. Is Krugman's Nobel some kind of supernova, washing out all possibility of mentioning episodes that were plenty notable before? I believe Wikipedia policy is that notability is permanent. And of course it is: if something has been written down, you can't go make it into something unrecorded unless you've invented time travel. Yakushima (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. You're saying we should have a controversies section, including in it controversies about Krugman, and controversies started by Krugman. Correct? If so, I would favor that. Notable controversies should probably have a section, as Krugman is a pretty controversial guy. LK (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved Enron into commentary, for now. If a controversies section ever gets off the ground it can easily be moved back and I will have no objections. Gruntler (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Krugman has sometimes advocated free markets in contexts where they are contrary to his ideology"

This sentence looks like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. It also reads a lot like an accusation of hypocrisy which would probably violate WP:BLP, among other things. I have tried to change it twice and been reverted both times. Can I see a defense of this text from those wishing to preserve it? Gruntler (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this phrase "Contrary to his ideology" is being reinserted. It's a strong claim to make, that a) we know what he believes, and b) what he has been documented advocating violates his own beliefs. Some strong sources will be needed to make such a claim. In the mean time, please do not reinsert until this is resolved on the talk page. LK (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current text ("contrary to liberal ideology") could be improved as well. We don't have a Guide to Liberal Ideology to compare to. Anyway, I think most of the issues listed in that paragraph are controversial among liberals. I tried "contexts where they are unpopular" but that's not quite right either. Maybe just "Krugman has advocated freer markets in many contexts." Gruntler (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I gather that at least some people see a domestic/international distinction - that Krugman advocates free markets in globalisation quite a lot, but domestically within the US, less so. It may be a specifically libertarian point of view though. Rd232 ^talk 07:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really notice such a distinction. Krugman's writings has always struck me as very typical of liberal left-wing economists. Concern about issues like poverty and equality, but advocating market solutions when economic theory is clear that gov intervention makes things worse (eg. rent control, intl' trade). Of course, I may be biased because I hold similar beliefs. LK (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that the text presents (for example) the manned space program is an example of liberal ideology, while in reality both support and opposition cut across party lines. The same applies to some of the other programs. Gruntler (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think something like original wording, 'in contexts where they are controversial' may be best. LK (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I disagree with the edit Krugman has sometimes advocated free markets in contexts where they are contrary to his ideology. It implies that Krugman has an ideology opposed to free markets. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in view of something Brad Delong once wrote about him:

You wouldn't know it from the hacks (the Luskins, the Sullivans, the Kauses) who have been laying down their slime trails ever since it turned out that Paul Krugman was an effective New York Times columnist, but Paul Krugman loves the market more than any other economist I know....

Of course, it could be that Delong doesn't know many other economists, just very anti-market types in some notionally ultra-leftist U.C. Berkeley econ department .... but somehow I doubt that. Christina Romer and Barry Eichengreen, anti-market? Awfully secretive about it, if so.

Delong goes on to say of Krugman:

He's one who believes that market failures are dangerous things that can be neutralized: smart reorganizations of property rights, or small steps that put the government's thumb on the scale to improve incentives, or tweaks to the legal structure that rule certain kinds of contracts out and other kinds of contracts in will, he thinks, almost always turn the market into an effective and efficient social planning and organization mechanisms that everyone can love. His is a "tough love" approach to markets--and it is a sign that he cares and that he has great faith in Adam Smith.[62]

Now, maybe there was a sort of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR problem with "unpopular positions" version -- you might need secondary-source support, e.g. some writer pointing to RS polls showing that Krugman's stance was not the majority opinion, on a position-by-position basis. Maybe the best way to approach this problem would be to forget about categories like "liberal" and just cite RS comparing his positions with those of commonly-polled groups in the U.S. (Democrat, Republican, Independent). It's not so hard to find the actual divergence in most cases -- for example, I'd say he takes a (marginally) minority view against his fellow Americans about NASA and manned space travel [63]. But maybe that's still WP:SYNTH unless you can find RS pointing out these gaps.

I think some indications of his position(s) on the spectrum could be worked into other parts of the article, and left implicit, or implicitly supported, simply by quoting critics to his left. For example, the whole "Legend of Arthur"/New Yorker controversy featured Krugman speculating that the source of writer's bias about Brian Arthur was Marxist leanings. It wasn't red-baiting, it was just basic inference: Increasing returns can be thought of as a market failure, moreover a failure favoring Monopoly Capitalism; and a Marxist would tend not only to be partial to such arguments, but also (more to Krugman's point) rather easily persuaded that an economist would be ignored in the mainstream for scientifically substantiating Marxist economics. Krugman would, I think, just say, "Marxism, Schmarxism: wherever there is any natural and pernicious tendency to monopoly, existing anti-trust law reins it in well enough already. No need to invoke some Final Shuddering Crisis of Late Capitalism." That would be consistent with Delong's view, and with my impression of Krugman over the years. I don't where Krugman might have said any such thing, but I do know where he brought up Marxist bias in the Legend of Arthur; quoting or paraphrasing it might be helpful, especially if the article has plenty abou his other criticisms of leftists, as well as leftist criticism of him. 114.183.163.74 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That was me: Yakushima (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gruntler, your edit violates WP:Weasel, again. Please read the policy as I advised yesterday. Whoever wrote the section beginning with "contrary to liberal ideology" was making a valid and important NPOV point that you continue to cleanse. The point of that section is obvious that some of Krugman's economic views are contrary to his ideological views. Scribner (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article POV. We've got two sections under dispute because of Gruntler's cleansing. The section in question is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. It's a statement of fact that offers several examples. Scribner (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

From a reliable source we're already using "Although Krugman makes plain his partisanship and shows some candor about representing an ideology,19 mainly Krugman presents himself as above ideology." Scribner (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, is weaselish? I'd have guessed that you think it's not clear who views these issues as "controversial," but that doesn't explain your reversion of [64]. So I'm stumped. Gruntler (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I have guessed correctly about "controversial," I would argue that it falls under the second exception of WP:WEASEL, "when the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." Gruntler (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ideology" is a loaded term normally applied to rigid left-wing or right-wing theorists, and is not normally applied to centrists. While the article uses the term its use in this article is entirely out of context. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does anyone except Scribner have a problem with the wording, "in contexts where they are controversial"? If so, what should replace it? Scribner, is anything else acceptable to you except "contrary to his ideology"? From the above discussion, that wording is not acceptable to any of the other people who have commented so far. LK (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a RS cite supporting my version. No one has provided a RS cite supporting your version. And, yes, Gruntler any statement or word that begs the question "who" or "where" is a weasel word and an exception of "the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous" in this case fails. The section is specific in detailing several examples of free markets that are classically partisan.

The point of the section is that Krugman is "above ideology", as I believe the original editor of the section correctly pointed out and that Gruntler seems incapable of understanding. Scribner (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Krugman is "above ideology", in some technical sense of "ideology". For example, he favors a more even income distribution, because he thinks that makes for a better society. That's not economics, that's a political value-system talking.

But Scribner's claim? Supported with what? Ah, Klein & Barlett (2008) again -- didn't this already get categorized as basically self-published? (BTW, www.aeir.org is now domain-name-parked.) And it makes no sense here. It says:

I argue that the pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with [Krugman's] purported concern for general prosperity and the interests of the poor . . . . My main contention is that his social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people's interests, notably poor people's interests. The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it is poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions . . .

Klein's saying, basically, "However well-intentioned, social-democrat-style market interventions hurt the poor; Krugman claims to want to help the poor; but he doesn't speak out against social-democrat-style market interventions, even though they are rife -- CONTRADICTION!!!11!1!!!." So what place does this libertarian's position have supporting any statement mainly devoted to listing Krugman's non-interventionist positions? That's just incoherent.

At best, this kind of citation belongs in some treatment of Krugman's stances in debates between libertarians and social democrats (or their American equivalent, whether you call that "liberal" or "progressive"). And maybe the article should have that. Remember, I favor separate treatment of controversies. Even if Klein's contribution to any such debate doesn't rise to Wikipedia standards of notability or reliability, that still might be a notable controversy. But where and how Scribner wants Klein cited? That I have a big problem with. Yakushima (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Noticeably, you fail to provide a cite supporting your version. As I've said, we're already using the Econ Journal Watch cite. And, this is exactly the kind of Op-ed peer review material that should be included in articles, as opposed to the negative Op-ed mention you claim was needed in the lead. It is in fact a positive observation to be "above ideology". Perhaps you should try the concept. Scribner (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because we're already using a cite doesn't mean you can use it as a supporting RS at a point in the article where it's saying something pretty much the opposite.

"Op-ed peer review material"? What the hell is that, Scribner? A new source category you just made up? One that will soon appear in some Wikipedia policy that you've unilaterally changed, under some convenient over-interpretation of the exhortation to BE BOLD? [65].

Econ Journal Watch is a good cite, sorry but whining doesn't change that fact. Still no cite for your claim? This is an Op-ed peer review

Wow. Read My Lips, Scribner: the EJW article says Krugman doesn't complain about social-democratic interventionist policies that it claims hurt the poor. The passage where EJW is being cited lists Krugman's anti-interventionist positions. You see no contradiction? OPEN YOUR EYES AND READ. Econ Journal Watch is a good cite in any discussion of Krugman vs. Libertarians/Conservatives. It's not very good where it actually shows him aligned with many libertarian positions. EJW is heavily staffed with George Mason University economists. In its list of advisors, I recognize no names not associated with libertarian or conservative positions. It should be clear that it's a partisan source (just as it should be clear that Krugman himself is a partisan source.) As for "Op-ed peer review", Google can't even find those words in a row, except in one single source [66] that clearly contrasts the two modes of "op-ed" and "peer review" (big, jaw-dropping DUH appropriate here, I think). So you ARE making up a source category, just as I thought. How creative. Yakushima (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: rather than verify in detail that Econ Journal Watch is disengenuous in its tacit claim of impartiality about catching errors in economic reasoning in econ journals, I find EJW listed on a Ludwig von Mises Institute page titled "Austro-Libertarian Movement Journals." [67] What a time-saver! It's not a true peer-reviewed academic journal -- it's little more than a glossy, toney, lib/con op-ed page. Yakushima (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that "peer review" claim you make about EJW? Nope -- there's no peer review, it's all just communications with the (entirely libertarian) editors. After practically promising to get you published faster than anybody else, even anybody else online, they say [68] "the EJW editorial process is like that of a carefully edited magazine," but also, somehow, despite no evident peer review process, "without any sacrifice to scholarliness." Really? Sounds to me only slightly more scholarly than . . . a blog? Come to think of it, I have read more scholarly blogs. Even from libertarians. Yakushima (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, pertaining to my policy change, I'll write it into NPOV policy where it has support and folks like you will have policy to guide you against use of negative Op-ed materials in BLP leads. Scribner (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We're already aware that you try to unilaterally make Wikipedia policy, where it's convenient for your vision for an article. Keep it up. It'll get you bounced, sooner or later. Yakushima (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Farm subsidies, ethanol, and manned space flight are all quite bipartisan in both their supporters and opponents. The rest have a partisan tilt but in most cases not an overwhelming one. It wouldn't have occurred to me to call any of those "classically partisan" issues and we absolutely should not put a blanket label of "liberal" on all of them.

Why does the WP:WEASEL exception fail? Farm subsidies have supporters in farm states and opponents in urban areas--this only loosely correlates to the parties. Manned space flight has a complicated coalition involving various companies who profit from building space equipment, regions of the US get federal funding from the space program, some scientists who think the knowledge gained is valuable, various people who are just excited by space, et cetera ad nauseum. This is entirely different from the rent control political coalitions, which are entirely different from pro-and anti-sweatshop political coalitions, etc. Seems "too diverse or numerous" to me.

If you really hate the word "controversial," what was wrong with [69] which you reverted?

I too can't see how your source supports the text you want in the article. Even if it did relate, we can't just put an op-ed's opinion about Krugman's ideology as text in the article: it would have to be couched in words like "Economist Dan Klein believes..."

As for sourcing for "controversial," the links in the sentence beginning with "He has written against..." describe controversies associated with each topic. Gruntler (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything very weaselly in the present wording, and I don't see anybody saying that except an editor who unilaterally goes and edits Wikipedia policy to say what he thinks it means. The header neutrality dispute seems to relate entirely to this one, so I'm taking down both tags. Yakushima (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a good cite for my claim. Either accept it, live with the tag(s) or take it to moderation. Scribner (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I clarified the edit per cites. There's at least one other cite about Krugman being pragmatic with regard to child labor being preferable to children having to be sold, etc. Scribner (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording really captures the issues. "Krugman has advocated unregulated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial for being abusive to labor or tenants." NASA, farm subsidies, and ethanol etc. are not controversial for being abusive to labor or tenants, and if the list expands in the future it's likely to become even less appropriate. And I doubt very much that Krugman wanted "unregulated free markets" as opposed to simply having less or different regulation (this is why I started using "freer"). (And actually rent control, if it's abusive to anyone, it's to landlords and to people who would like to live in the houses that aren't built, a very abstract group. Tenants on the whole benefit from rent control.)

How do you feel about "Krugman has advocated freer markets in many contexts." ? Gruntler (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rent and wage control are regulation. Opposition to regulated free markets would be "unregulated free markets", not "freer markets". Freer than what? Remember to avoid edits that beg who, what, where.

The rest of the paragraph, "NASA, farm subsidies, and ethanol etc." are now somewhat unrelated to the first two sentences. The missing link is that Krugman is pragmatic and "above ideology" and I have the links but it's not worth my effort because good faith edits keep getting reverted for Op-ed inclusions and "freer market" comments. No offense intended Scribner (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Freer" means "freer than they are now." "Free" makes you wonder "compared to what" just as much as "freer."

Krugman does not call for "unregulated" markets in either article. Krugman saying "rent control as implemented in many cities is bad" is not the same thing as "there should be no regulation of the rental market." Example of a rent control regulation: "you can't evict someone without 30 days notice." I have no idea where Krugman would come down on this. And in the sweatshop piece, he talks about a particular conception of international labor standards which he objects to. Again, objecting to one particular instance of regulation is not the same as advocating "unregulated" markets. I'd imagine Krugman doesn't object to China imposing minimum standards on sweatshops in its borders, for example, but at any rate we don't know that from the article. Gruntler (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, before re-reintroducing your version, please read up on rent control. Rent control is mostly a transfer of wealth from existing landlords to existing tenants. Tenants in rent-controlled apartments are typically better off than they would be if rent control was abolished. It is very strange to describe this as "abusive to tenants." Gruntler (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Gruntler that's an extremely basic concept. Now - taking it slowly just for you - you do understand that Krugman is against rent control, correct? And, you read the cite that about abuses tenants were alleging, correct? So, you hopefully understand that in free market extremes that without free market rent control that tenants can and do suffer abuses of discrimination, etc? Are you still there? Another example of Krugman being pragmatic against his ideology is his claim that he supports child labor in environments where the child might otherwise be sold. Read the cites, that's always a good place to start. Scribner (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I got this discussion mixed up with a different debate I've been having elsewhere. Very sorry! That said, my other objections stand.Gruntler (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, get it all sorted out and list those current objections or revert your run-on sentence to my last edit. Scribner (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about you list objections to the current text? I've asked about similar text twice in this thread and you never objected before (except to "freer" which isn't in the current text).

As for your version, it doesn't work as a topic sentence. Most of the examples don't relate to it at all, as I said upthread. Splitting the sentence doesn't fix it, topic sentences are for paragraphs. Also, by picking out those topics, you're giving attention to those particular essays. By mentioning only the losers from the policies he advocates, you're violating NPOV. "Abusive" is a pretty loaded word and probably a violation of the "impartial tone" section of WP:NPOV. Gruntler (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sources cited are all Krugman's own writings, since Krugman would not call his positions "abusive to tenants or workers", claiming that the sources support that wording is synthesis or disingenuous. LK (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. What he says in fact is that the alternatives are worse. The point being made (that you guys are missing and continue to cleanse) is that Krugman is pragmatic and "above ideology" and makes no defense for the abuses of unregulated free markets, like sweatshops or child labor or rental discrimination but that the alternatives people often face, in reality, are often worse. Scribner (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting in 10 hours a day of backbreaking labour barely feeding my family on subsistence farming. Someone offers me a job working in an air-conditioned factory that pays me enough to buy 3 times more food than before. How is this offer "abusive to workers"? LK (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of an air-conditioned sweatshop. I suspect it's a novel idea in third world countries as well. At any rate, sweatshops, child labor and tenant abuse are a real aspect of an unregulated free market. Krugman is on record as supporting them all because he feels the alternatives could be worse. Read the cites, it's really not a debatable topic. Scribner (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment actually shows that your beliefs are not 'fact-based'. I've lived in 3rd world countries. All multinational companies climate-control their so-called 'sweatshops', it's a small cost to pay for higher productivity. As for their impact on the lives of their workers, you're right that there is no debate, it is unambiguously positive. Here are some cites for you to read: Christian Science Monitor[70], New York Times [71], some academic papers (warning, not light reading) [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. This discussion is off-topic, so I won't be responding further here. If you find any peer-reviewed papers showing that open trade is abusive to labour in poor countries, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. LK (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman doesn't deny abuses in child labor, sweatshops or rental discrimination. He does say that he thinks the alternatives are often better, which is what this article is going to say. You're on the wrong article altogether to be promoting your point of view on the virtues of sweatshops, child labor and rental discrimination. Conservapedia might welcome your POV. Scribner (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisanship in columns

Version 1:

• The Economist argues that Paul Krugman is one of the most partisan American columnists. The Economist claims that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.

Version 2:

• The Economist argues that Paul Krugman is "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left" whose "economics is sometimes stretched". The Economist claims that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.

• A 2003 editorial by The Economist argued that Paul Krugman is "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left" whose "economics is sometimes stretched". The Economist claimed that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his "perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."

One of these versions would go into the journalist section. Comments? -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly bad reasoning by the standards of The Economist. You can't derive anything "empirically" from a "theory". You can only support a theory empirically (with observations, whether derived from experiment or not.) Did they really print that? I went and looked, and saw it: Yes, they did.[80] But, Vision Thing, they also wrote something that you (conveniently, given your obvious biases) left out of your paraphrase of The Economist's editorial: they wrote of "his perfectly respectable political beliefs", which you rendered as "his personal political beliefs." Yes, I think that must have been you, on the delete key. The Economist endorsed George W. Bush in the 2000 elections, and yet, despite its clearly critical position on Krugman in that 2003 op-ed, still considered Krugman's political beliefs "perfectly respectable". Are you now going to drop your claim that his political beliefs are "far out of the mainstream"? Or are you just going to keep dropping words from descriptions of Paul Krugman, whenever you find them ideologically inconvenient? Yakushima (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed it. Is that better? -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's better and not least because, with the quotes around it, you're no longer lifting wording verbatim from a source with no indication -- AKA plagiarism. Yakushima (talk)

Version 3:

• An editorial published in the The Economist referred to a blog that called Paul Krugman one of the most partisan American columnists out of the United States' top ten liberal and top ten conservative columnists.

Version 4:

• A 2003 editorial by The Economist questioned Krugman's "growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush," citing critics who felt that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument."

All these versions violate WP:RS and WP:BLP. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote relevant parts of RS and BLP? -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source). (my emphasis)

See: WP:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1. In all four versions opinions are directly attributed.
2. I'm not clear why are you quoting second paragraph. Are you claiming that The Economist is self-published? -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Either version 1. or 2. are fine as both are sourced and merely repeating information that rounds out presentation of Krugman. The idea in an article like this and others is to present varied information from legitimate sources that broadens perspective. Both version 1. or 2 do that. skip sievert (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

v1: "The Economist argues that Paul Krugman is one of the most partisan American columnists." This is not accurate. The Economist editorial argues that his partisanship reduces the quality of his analysis, and does not take any position on how partisan Krugman is compared to other pundits. Krugman being "most partisan" is due solely to Lying in Ponds. "The Economist claims that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." This phrasing implies that Krugman does it all the time, whereas the Economist was talking about one particular article.

v2: "The Economist argues that Paul Krugman is "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left" whose "economics is sometimes stretched"." As phrased, sounds like Krugman's actual economic work is in question, which it's not. And of course the same issue involving the second sentence of v1 applies here.

v3: Citing the Economist solely for the Economist's citation of a blog is kind of silly.

My suggestion is version 4.

There is also the issue that criticism will be getting undue weight if we add more. Three criticisms and one piece of praise, and I'm not sure how representative that praise is. Gruntler (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Krugman's comment about his attacks on Bush, "I was more right in 2001 than anyone in the pundit class" from the Newsweek article seems like it'd be good to tack on. Gruntler (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We should find a more recent article that critique's Krugman's column not an op-ed from 2003. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I gagged a little on my lunch seeing a comment that a neutrally worded summary of an editorial in one of the most respected publication in the world would prima facia violate BLP. Absurd. The economist's comments on krugman aren't out of line, they aren't even factually incorrect. Paul Krugman is a brilliant economist, a funny writer and an incisive political commentator, but if our article doesn't summarize the very relevant criticism that he treats his oeuvre as an economist as reason to wade in on political disputes or gives readers the suggestion that he is reasoning from first principles, then wikipedia is worse off for it. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We are all ok with version 4? I will add to the article. LK (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• A 2003 editorial by The Economist questioned Krugman's "growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush," citing critics who felt that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument.

  İ think that's OK, appropriately placed chronologically. Rd232 ^talk 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Version 4 leaves out most important criticism, and that is that Krugman, in the opinion of The Economist, sometimes misleads readers with his use of economic theory. -- Vision Thing -- 09:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, it leaves out the information that a single Economist editorial from 2003 criticised 2 of Krugman's columns. Including that may beWP:UNDUE (as I would argue), but including your kind of generalisation is simply misleading. Rd232 ^talk 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument" ? Is the issue that you want the different ways his partisanship affects his arguments to be explicitly described? Gruntler (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't covered by "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument" because that statement is pretty vague. Also, his focus on Bush is already abundantly covered in the other places in the article, so mentioning that again doesn't add much new information. -- Vision Thing -- 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess what you mean is that it's not covered adequately. Granted, the current text is pretty generic, as you say. I'm not sure that the specific criticism you want in the article is actually that widespread--and as RD232 points out, even if it was, The Economist article doesn't quite support the criticism that he generally abuses economics so probably getting a different source would be better. We shouldn't over-rely on this ancient article anyway. Actually, my impression is the most widespread criticism of Krugman that isn't in the Wikipedia article already is that Krugman makes errors when he's writing about things *outside* his area of expertise, whereas the "economics is stretched" formulation implies that he particularly makes errors *within* his area of expertise.

The opinion that the focus on Bush caused Krugman to make errors in his columns is not covered elsewhere in this article, I think. Gruntler (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe it could be extended. Something like:

A 2003 opinion piece in The Economist questioned Krugman's "growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush," referencing critics who felt that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument" and citing what it claimed were errors of economic and political reasoning that had appeared in Krugman's column.

It needs a bit of tweaking but is something along these lines ok with you? Gruntler (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer something like: "A 2003 article by The Economist argued that Paul Krugman is "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left" whose "economics is sometimes stretched" in his columns. The Economist provided examples of his columns in which according to their analysis he gives lay readers the illusion that his "perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."" However, with that being said, I think that your version is a great improvement over material that is currently in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you feel it's an improvement, I put in text similar to what I suggested. This of course doesn't mean we shouldn't keep discussing if you are so inclined. The reason I prefer what I wrote is that the that I think the criticisms quoted in it are much more widespread (ie notable) and I think the description more accurately represents the ideas of the article as a whole, whereas it seems to me that what you wrote focuses on a small part of the article. Gruntler (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is called "The one-handed economist". I think that your version misses the focus of The Economist criticism. They are arguing that Krugman sometimes misleads his readers with his use of economics, not that he makes simple errors. -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is much more text devoted to partisanship than to economic errors--just one paragraph on economics. And the economic errors there don't rise to the level of "misleading," I think. Krugman (maybe) misinterpreted or misrepresented a paper, and he made some unconvincing game theory arguments, as if 90% of op-eds weren't unconvincing anyway... Gruntler (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... if [81] is the column about the "lump of labor fallacy" that the Economist refers to, Krugman doesn't ever say that the paper commits the fallacy. He praises the paper, and says that (unnamed) "business commentators" were committing the fallacy while talking about the paper. I realize this is my OR, but it further disinclines me from inclusion of that part of the Economist article. Gruntler (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It must be the piece, there's only one NYT column containing the phrase "lump of labor" based on searching pkarchive.org. Gruntler (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Side note: is this actually an editorial? I don't have a subscription anymore but from my memories of it, the things I'd call "editorials" were lablelled "leaders," while the Economist piece on Krugman is tagged under "Face Value," and my google investigations suggest that "Face Value" in the Economist would be better described as a series of business articles. But rather than me trying to figure this out, maybe someone with an actual subscription could clear this up quickly. If not perahps we should rename to the more generic "article" or "piece." The problem is that *everything* in the Economist is unsigned but that shouldn't make every piece with opinion into an editorial.

I (and I think most people) think of an "editorial" as something which has the endorsement of the entire editorial staff. You can use an editorial to talk about "the opinion of the Economist magazine" whereas you wouldn't do that with a simple unsigned article (as I suspect this is). So if Gruntler (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should refrain from categorizing it and just call it "article". -- Vision Thing -- 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)