Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive 4

A (somewhat) more balanced introduction, including controversy

This [1] edit. I would be inordinately pleased if, when you (inevitably) dispute it, you actually cited a fact about Krugman based on a source that you directly indicate (with a link please). Also, if you change my wording, please don't leave grammar errors or bad word choices if you can possibly help it. If you can't help it, please go edit Culture Club or something. Yakushima (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is just way too much criticism to have in the lead. No reading of WP:DUE or WP:LEAD would justify having so much criticism of Krugman in the lead, no matter how controversial he might be. Maybe if it could be summarized in a single sentence there might be room for it. Else it will have to go in the Controversies section.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Freeloader. There is absolutely no reason to weigh the lede down with some randomly selected criticism. He is not notable for having been criticized. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not "randomly selected". It's selected to underscore that criticism of Krugman has come from across the political spectrum. If you instead cite only a particularly error-riddled opinion piece from an otherwise middle-of-the-road and highly esteemed publication like The Economist, you make it sound like only sensible moderates criticize Krugman -- which is very far from the truth, and very far from the kind of criticism that gets the most attention. Better to have no criticism in the lead at all. So that's what I'll do: I'll delete the criticism in the lead. Yakushima (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, if the amount of criticism was too much, why did you violate WP:PRESERVE by deleting citations to other sources across the political spectrum?

Shorter version of the same thing: done. Anybody happy yet? If not, what's it gonna take? Yakushima (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's not randomly selected, then who selected it? You? That's original research. You're trying to make a point (that Krugman is criticized across the political spectrum) which is not being made by any reliable sources. It's classic synthesis. Anyway, it doesn't matter. All of this is completely inappropriate for the lede. Krugman is not notable for being criticized, he's notable for being an economist, NYT columnist and Nobel prize winner. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:SYNTH, "synthesis" includes

... any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

The proposition that Paul Krugman has been criticized by Marxists, other progressives, centrists, and conservatives and Libertarians of various stripes is not a "position." It's a fact. It's a fact that can be established very much as I established it: by citing sources from people writing at points on the political spectrum that are "directly related to the topic of the article," and that (by virtue of these people's positions, not any position of mine) "directly support the material as presented." Yakushima (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Loonymonkey. It shouldn't be there in the lead. Firstly, it is synthesis. Secondly, the lead is supposed to give an overview of the article. There's nothing like that in the article. It may be ok if the article had a section about how Krugman has been criticized by many people from various groups, but it doesn't. FurrySings (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth a moment of your time, all of you (but especially latecomers like FurrySings) to step back and look at how this wrangle started. Two editors in particular, Freeloader and Vision Thing (for whom I have vanishingly little assumption of good faith after all that's transpired) wanted to cite an Economist article ("The one-handed economist") as a "reliable source" for the statement that Krugman's commentary has been criticized for using a veneer of economic reasoning to support purely partisan positions. Given that some people wanted to see mention of criticism in the lead in the first place, I thought it a violation of WP:NPOV to try to rely solely on the sterling reputation of the (moderately conservative, but generally staid, credible and middle-of-the-road) Economist when scrutiny of "The one-handed economist" revealed that it was riddled with errors and unsupported statements. I thought Freeloader and Vision Thing were POV-pushing; I still believe that.

What we've got now is hardly more than "Krugman's views have been discussed a lot." Well, duh.

Is anybody here seriously going to deny that Paul Krugman has been criticized in commentary from across the political spectrum (even if the preponderance comes from the Right, as I mentioned in wording that has since been diluted down to nothing)? If 743+127 = 870, is it WP:SYNTH to say so if you can't find a reliable source adding those two numbers and coming up with that result?

If in fact it's OK to mention criticism of Krugman in the lead (an unresolved problem in itself), it surely it bears mention that the criticism is almost entirely political, and surely, to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on any ideological position, the lead should say that not all of the criticism comes from points to Krugman's right, especially given that the paragraph puts emphasis on Krugman the Liberal. Yakushima (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything in the lead of a BLP should be discussed in the article, and be notable and reasonably uncontroversial as well. Given this, everything in the lead of a BLP should be "Well, duh" for people familiar with the subject. I think the sentence right now is just that, and that's good. FurrySings (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit to influences field in infobox

Per MOS Infoboxes, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". Not explicitly stated here, but well understood in practice is the notion that material in an infobox is deliberately redundant; any item in an infobox should be found, almost always with supporting references, in the main text of the article.

The infobox for an economist mirrors that purpose, but is more explicit: "Entries in influences, opposed, influenced, and contributions should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted."

Based upon these policy reasons, I've removed all of the entries in the "influences" field except Keynes. The support for Keynes is limited, but at least it exists. The Hicks entry was supported by a ref, which looks adequate, but as it is not mentioned in the main text, I've removed that as well. It could be re added to the infobox if someone finds the right way to incorporate the reference into the main text. The others could be re-added as well, if they are worked into the text in a logical way, and supported by references.--SPhilbrickT 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What about WP:PRESERVE? What about the imperative to improve articles? What about Being Bold? Simply removing Hicks as influential on Krugman is none of those things. Hicks' influence on Krugman is very much a matter of public record, see e.g., [2] Rather than remove obvious sources of influence, relying on some strenuously literal interpretation of policy, why not add text and citations to the article to support them? Yakushima (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "preserve" goes back to 2001. While some policies are immutable, some need to evolve.

Some editor added an influence without bothering to add any supporting citations. In 2001, that could be viewed as a positive addition, even though it meant someone else has to do the legwork. I see the situation differently now. But I'd like to be clear. If someone sees an unsupported claim, and they are willing to spend the time to do the proper research, more power to them, it makes for a better encyclopedia.

However, I do not accept that the deficiency of one editor imposes an obligation on me. I accept the imperative of improving articles. Removing uncited material is an improvement. It takes time and effort to search for relevant text and citations. The record will show I've done that thousands of times. However, at the time I saw this entry, I had neither the time nor the interest to do the necessary research to support it.

I did make a point of summarizing what I did here and why, rather than simply deleting with nothing more than an editor summary. What i should have done is left a list of those I removed, to make it easier for someone interested in doing the research to track it down. That's what I will do now.

The following economists were listed in the Info box as Influences or Influenced, but there is nothing in the article mentioning their names.

• Jagdish Bhagwati
• Rudi Dornbusch
• James Tobin
• Avinash Dixit
• Joseph Stiglitz
• Marc Melitz

If someone does the proper research, and can find a clean way of incorporating these economists into the article, with proper citations, their names can be re added to the info box. Per Policy, they the info box is supposed to be a summary of the article, not unsupported claims.--SPhilbrickT 02:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't think it makes much sense to have "Influenced" in the infobox - since this number is quite large - and even within text proper it should be limited to the mot important "students". So in that list above, Melitz doesn't belong there (got his PhD in 2000, so definitely not an influence, and one of the many "influenced"). The other guys make sense. Dornbusch was his thesis advisor, and he worked for Bhagwati as a research assistant (B might have been on his committee as well, can't remember). The other three obviously influenced his work, with Tobin being more of an "inspiration" (see the obit for Tobin Krugman wrote [3]) than a direct influence. Volunteer Marek  13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree largely with your comment about "influenced". The number is probably quite large, and even the (implicit?) restriction to notables makes for a long list. I wasn't the originator of the concept, so I don't know whether the hope was that the lists would be exhaustive or not. It that was the hope, I'd suggest that would be a worthy topic, and might make for interesting reading, but it would be a lot to cram into an info box in many cases.

However, I do not see any need to design any policy, we effectively have a working policy. If the influence of another economist on Krugman (or Krugman on another economist) was extensive, it would justify a paragraph or two in the article proper. If it is just a modest influence, then it doesn't deserve mention in the article, and therefore doesn't belong in the infobox. As for the ones I removed, it isn't my position that they did not have influence on Krugman, they almost certainly did. I simply agree with the rule that the mention in the infobox should follow from a substantive mention in the article. If someone takes the time to do the proper research, and the community feels the material deserves inclusion in the article, then the name belongs in the info box.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two things here; the infobox in this particular article, on Paul Krugman, and the general practices of infoboxes on famous economists. In my comment above I was addressing the former. IF we're gonna have a section on "Influences" in an economist infobox, then in THIS, Paul Krugman infobox, it makes sense to include Dornbusch, Bhagwati etc. This could be easily incorporated into the text of the article as well; "At MIT Paul Krugman worked as a research assistant for Jagdish Bhagwati and attended several of his courses which would influence his future work, (source:easy to find). He finished his dissertation under Rudy Dornbusch(source: easy to find)". Hence, this is really a criticism about the main body of the article lacking in pertinent information rather than about the infobox (and this is probably due to the fact that most editors are so focused on fighting ideological battles about Paul that they all get too lazy about looking up and sourcing this basic factual kind of info).

However, I actually sympathize with your position. I don't think we should have a "Influences" section in economists' infoboxes. It's pretty dumb, though not as dumb as the "Opposes" (whatever that was supposed to mean) that was in there at one point. But this is something to be brought up at the relevant infobox template page. Looking at other famous economists' infoboxes it seems like people put this junk in all the time. I would just get rid off it. Maybe substitute something like "Thesis advisor" and "Students" (which I think is the way it's done with mathematicians) for this amorphous, ill-defined and WP:OR-inviting "influences" and "influenced". Volunteer Marek  07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I agree. "Influences"? Eh? We're not talking about pop music bands here. More concrete tagging (as you suggest) of how various contemporary and historical figures relate to a given economist's thought would be better for the infobox. And your point about how other battles over Krugman create a kind of "fog of war" getting in the way of clear and expanded description of his economic thought and its development -- yes, very true in my experience of trying to work with other people on this article. But still, look: until somebody expands the section tagged for expansion, where "influences" should be covered, and until the infobox tagging conventions are agreed upon, leaving his infobox "influences" at Keynes and Hicks, both long dead, is tantamount to saying that Krugman is ... well, a slave to some defunct economists. (To (not) coin a phrase.[4]) Hence my very strenuous objection to SPhilbrick's deleting everyone except Keynes and Hicks in that list, relying on an over-literal, non-commonsense interpretation of Infobox MOS. By slavishly adhering to what's really only a guideline, the Infobox ended up (implicitly) telling the world that Krugman's nothing but old hat in econ theory. If you actually know even a little about his work, you know that's a pretty bizarre distortion of reality -- and hardly, as SPhilbrick characterizes it, some kind of "improvement" to the article. If SPhilbrick really knew Krugman, he wouldn't be deleting all those names -- he'd be adding Dixit and Samuelson. Which I'm going to do right now, come to think of it. Yakushima (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

SPhilbrick refers above to a supposed "policy" that infoboxes must summarize what's in the article and only what's in the article. He's wrong: It is not a policy. WP:IBX is in fact only a guideline.

As with all WP guidelines, we're required to exercise common sense. Here's what common sense tells me: If an article is clearly deficient somewhere in its main text, to leave that article even more deficient by deleting useful information from the corresponding part of its infobox is not, as SPhilbrick claims, some sort of "improvement." Quite the contrary.

After all, readers of Wikipedia articles don't measure an article's quality by how closely it adheres to an obscure Wikipedia infobox design guideline -- 99.999+% of readers don't even know such a guideline exists. Rather, they judge an article by how well-informed it makes them feel. And we don't want any readers feeling well-informed by Krugman's bio while coming away with the impression, "He's only been influenced by two economists, both long dead." We want them to think the truth: that he's been influenced by quite a number of first-rate economists, some historical, some contemporary. As are all current first-rate economists. Yakushima (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

SPhilbrick requires "consensus" on the talk page about bringing the infobox into conformance with "policy", in his summary for an edit [5] that, as you can see, egregiously violates WP:PRESERVE. He did this even after I put in what he calls above the "necessary time and energy required" to support the statements implied in the infobox material -- and more: support for additions to the "influences".

As I've pointed out repeatedly, here and on his talk page: Infobox MOS is not policy. It's a guideline. And, I notice, WP:PRESERVE is actually an element of policy. (No, really, take a look if you don't believe me.) But apparently, a mere guideline, to which common-sense exceptions apply (as always with guidelines), is Wikipedia policy simply because SPhilbrick says so, whereas WP:PRESERVE is no barrier to deleting someone else's carefully crafted citations on BLP assertions of fact because ... WP:PRESERVE has been around for a long time, and is now all worn out or something, like some stripped gear in an obsolete section of the editing machinery.

There's no basis for rational consensus with a person who thinks this way. But does SPhilbrick actually think this way? Let's be sure of this.

The relevant wording of WP:IBX:

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears."

Here are my questions for SPhilbrick:

(1) Should WP:PRESERVE, which is clearly part of policy, take a back seat to a guideline WP:IBX, and if you think so, why? (I would ask you to bear in mind that Wikipedia's rules exist for reasons, not for their own sake -- unlike, say, baseball, where sometimes a rule is defined rather arbitrarily simply to make sure there's a rule for every situation.)

(2) Should we take that IBX statement literally, following it to the letter unless there are explicit exemptions, under the assumption that it expresses policy about what must (and must not) go into infobox, and moreover, policy that's been carefully thought out and carefully worded?

(3) should all infobox material that doesn't conform to it be deleted, no matter how well-supported it is by citations -- even if that means basically deleting the infobox itself because there's nothing left in it after you apply the above as policy?

(4) in the documentation for the economist template [6], it says "should" about including main-text discussion of infobox entries, but only "may" about deleting those that don't have main-text discussion. Could he explain why "may" has become "must" (even when the entries bear multiple supporting citations), especially in view of the fact that the relevant section in the main text has been tagged for expansion?

(5) what is the justifification leaving the more casual browser the impression left by the text SPhilbrick considers an "improvement": that Paul Krugman has only been influenced by two long-dead economists (leaving out, among others, Krugman's own thesis advisor, and names found in economic theories on which Krugman bases much of his work)? I documented the connection. Must those connections be deleted in the name of "the rules", even if it leaves the reader with a false impression?

Remember, SPhilbrick: you're the one calling for "consensus" here. Consensus must be reached through discussion. Discussion requires answers to pivotal questions that bear directly on the issue at hand, when there are differences of interpretation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and the priorities among them. Such answers are required even of administrators -- being an administrator doesn't put you above that onus. So what are your answers to the above five questions? Yakushima (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As for your first question, I've urged you before, and I urge you again to read PRESERVE . I've cited the relevant portion before, but I'll post it one more time: ...preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change.

I preserved the sentence you deleted by copying it to the talk page; I preserved the list of influences who were not supported in the text by copying them to the talk page; I preserved all the citations to you looked up by copying them to the talk page. In short, I'm following it. I do agree that "Discussion requires answers to pivotal questions that bear directly on the issue at hand". I've responded twice with a quote from the Policy, so I ask you a pivotal question: what part of that policy is flawed, as you don't appear to accept my answer?--SPhilbrickT 01:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that WP:PRESERVE action because I wasn't looking for an entirely new thread for this discussion. I was looking for your answers here. Please remember: YOU didn't start adhering to WP:PRESERVE until I pointed out that you'd violated it. And then only grudgingly -- because you think that policy should "evolve." How could you have done so many edits, and become an administrator, without knowing about WP:PRESERVE? It's policy. As to your strawman: I don't know of any part of that policy that's flawed, and I never said it was. Have you gotten confused again, and are now asking me about guidelines not policy?

You still haven't answered the question that's pivotal for whether you have committed a WP:BLP violation with your edits: what could possibly justify deleting information about Paul Krugman that could make a casual reader (your typical peruser of infoboxes) believe that Paul Krugman has been influenced mainly by two economists whose work is now very dated, even if it's still quite important? That impression reflects negatively on the subject of this BLP, and it's seriously inaccurate. Krugman started in cutting-edge econ, he worked with people at the edge, contributed at the edge. You don't get a Bates Clark medal any other way. (You can get an econ Nobel for a lot less; see Hayek, who was proven wrong in almost every respect by the late 40s, and then basically left the econ field for philosophy.) I'm very sorry if you can't see that. It means you want to boss us around here even though you have essentially no credentials for supervising edits concerning technical aspects Krugman's career in economics. And econ is a technical discipline, even if, as Keynes quipped, "nobody will believe it." Why don't you go back the history and basketball articles you love so much? I'll bet there are plenty of articles in those categories with infobox data not seen in the main text. Once you actually know what you're talking about in applying the relevant guidelines there (including grasping the clear distinction between policies and guidelines, where you're definitely a little fuzzy), come on back and maybe learn a little about Paul Krugman. Yakushima (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox material

Some material added to support the names identified as influences in the infobox was removed, with the edit summary:

deleted sentence that says nothing more than what's already in the infobox; until such time as there's a proper treatment of influences, reducing gassy verbiage is a better use of editors' time and energy

In many circumstances, referring to an editor's contribution as "gassy verbiage" might be grounds for a warning, but as the deleting editor is referring to material added by same editor, I'll let it go.

However, the deletion does create an issue. First, a little background: It is relatively rare for a bio to include a section discussing, in any substantive way, people who have influenced, or were influenced by the subject. In some cases, there is extensive discussion. For example in Featured Article Malcolm X. Many names are mentioned, but only two earned a spot in the infobox. In both cases, the individuals are discussed, and the significant influence is clear. There is support for both claims in citations, and the citations are attached to the article text, not the infobox entry. It wouldn't be helpful to litter an infobox with the name of anyone who might have had some influence on the subject. There's probably not a person alive who couldn't list a dozen people who have had a influence on their lives. Entries in infobox are designed to summarize the most significant of those influences; people who have had enough influence that it has been reported in multiple RS, and with due consideration of WEIGHT issues, deserves more than passing mention in the article about the subject.

The infobox isn't a dumping ground for some editor to show off that they know something about the subject and can identify some influencers off the top of their head. This concept is not simply an infobox rule, we don't generally allow editors to simply add something to an article just because they think they know it, even if it potentially would add something to the article. In many cases, an editor will add unsourced or poorly written material that could, if improved, make the article better. In some cases, another editor will see the addition, and make the effort to copy-edit or track down relevant references. Anyone doing this deserves applause, but an addition of material not meeting guidelines does not create an obligation in other editors. Such material can be removed, but a good middle ground is to move the material to the talk page, so perhaps some other editor can make the effort to clean up the mess.

Generally speaking, material in infoboxes should also be contained in and properly sourced in the main text of the article. There are some rare exceptions, such as highly technical, standardized info boxes for chemical substances, but even in those cases, were an editor to challenge the material, it would be incumbent on editors to ensure that the entries can be tracked to a cited RS.

User:Yakushima appears to believe the exact opposite. After adding a paragraph of text to the main article in support of items in the infobox, I thanked the editor for that addition.Good catch, I thought the editor was thanking me, so I responded with you're welcome [Note from Yakushima: it was not a paragraph, but more important, he did not thank me. See [7]) Curiously, the editor decided to remove the material from the main text and leave the items in the infobox. [Note from Yakushima: It's not "curiously". I explained my reasoning to him. There was nothing mysterious in that explanation. As you can see for yourself [8] He's trying to reboot discussion while laundering his history in it, and here he insinuates irrationality on my part, an insinuation that doesn't withstand scrutiny. Don't fall for it.] The editor and I have been in discussion about the guidelines, so it is almost impossible to believe that the editor now had the guideline backwards, but I'll AGF and assume the editor simply misunderstands. [Note from Yakushima: this a bit rich, coming from someone who said more than once that the guideline was "policy", while not being able to get REAL policy -- WP:PRESERVE -- right, until I pointed out it applied.] It is tempting to restore the removed material, which would then support the infobox, but I agree with the editor that it isn't well-written. [Note from Yakushima: I only added it to get him out of my hair. He then said that must mean I agreed with him -- even though my edit summary in adding the sentence directly contradicted any such conclusion. Do you really want your edits supervised by this admin?]

I'll copy the material below, as well as the list of influences, so maybe another editor can wrote a coherent addition to the article and we can restore the list of influences, at least those that are significant enough to deserve mention.[Note from Yakushima: Somehow, I think he'll leave all the work of assessing degree of significance to "another editor". Do we have any takers, for this topic-knowledge-free brand of editing supervision?]

Removed text:

Krugman's views are strongly influenced by his mentors ( Baghwati, Tobin, Solow, Nordhaus, Dornbusch, among others)

Relevant citations:

• Paul Krugman (August 10, 2011). "Dismal Thoughts". The Conscience of a Liberal. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
• Arvind Subramian (June 2006). "Economist as Crusader". Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund - External Relations Department. ... his own mentors, Baghwati, Dornbusch, Solow, Bill Nordhaus, and James Tobin
• Paul Krugman (Dec 13, 2009). "Paul Samuelson, RIP". New York Times. One of the things Robin Wells and I did when writing our principles of economics textbook was to acquire and study a copy of the original, 1948 edition of Samuelson's textbook. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• "All Things Considered: Paul Krugman Interview". Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive. December 14, 2009. Retrieved 2011-12-11.
• Avinash Dixit. "The Less Well-Known Paul Krugman" (PDF). Princeton University. Retrieved 2011-12-11.
• Paul Krugman. "Rudi Dornbusch". The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page. Retrieved 2011-12-12.
• Masahisa Fujita; Paul R. Krugman; Anthony J. Venables. The Spatial Economy. p. 45. .... This spatial Dixit-Stiglitz model is a crucial ingredient in almost everything that follows.

Any editor is free, as usual, to craft a section highlighting the influences on Krugman. However, given that the addition of material to the userbox is contrary to the guidelines, such material should not be re-added to the article without a consensus that the guideline doesn't apply, or this contributes an exception to the guide or some other rationale, reached by consensus.--SPhilbrickT 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"User:Yakushima appears to believe the exact opposite

I do not believe the exact opposite. I believe, because I've checked, that what you've claimed as "policies" are actually guidelines. I believe that commonsense exceptions apply to guidelines because that's what all guidelines preface themselves with. I believe infobox listings with no corresponding article text are reasonable exception in this case, a temporarily reasonable price to pay in this case, for reasons I gave in great detail, more than once, on several different talk pages, all of which you have since appeared on. If it still "appears" to you that I believe "the exact opposite", it can only be for one (or more) of three reasons:

• You haven't read what I've written. (Administrator negligence.)
• You can't understand what I've written. (Administrator incompetence.)
• You want to portray my position in a false and negative light, the better to advance your far-from-perfect reasoning (Administrator venality and high-handedness.)

AGF requires me to assume it must be one (or both) of the first two. I can see no other possibilities.

"In some cases, another editor will see the addition, and make the effort to copy-edit or track down relevant references. Anyone doing this deserves applause, ..."

Yeah? I'm still waiting for your applause -- for adding citations to useful information that you then deleted.

"but an addition of material not meeting guidelines does not create an obligation in other editors."

Such an addition of material puts you under no personal obligation, so why do you have a problem with it? I'm happy to take up this particular obligation, because, speaking as someone who previously expanded the relevant section of the article while under fire from tendentious ideologues, I'd like to continue -- without ideological OR bureaucratic interference. The former source of interference has been a chronic problem for this BLP. See page history. See this talk page. Now we have improve this article under fire from the latter?

"Such material can be removed, ...."

The guideline says it "may" be removed. It certainly doesn't say it "must" be removed. And guidelines are, as always, subject to "commonsense exceptions". We've got a commonsense exception in spades here. This is BLP. If removal of useful (and cited) information would reflect both negatively and inaccurately on the subject, it's certainly a violation of the spirit of BLP, if not the letter of it. And remove it is what you did. You make it look like Krugman has hardly moved past Hickman and Keynes. That's just a lie, if told on purpose. And people lie about his record as an economist all the time. Wikipedia should not be offering those people any encouragement.

"but a good middle ground is to move the material to the talk page, so perhaps some other editor can make the effort to clean up the mess."

But it's not the only middle ground. Here are two more:

• Uncited infobox entries can take a tag. You didn't do that -- you simply deleted the information, removing useful (and uncontroversial) biographical data from a BLP, and leaving a false (and negative) impression in that BLP.
• If pro forma compliance with the guideline is your thing (clearly, it is), you could start a sentence in the relevant section with, say, "Among Paul Krugman's influences, one can list ", paste the list, remove the br tags, tighten up the syntax a little, and be done. BUT YOU DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THAT TOKEN EFFORT. Oh, how weary you must be! Oh wait: look at all you wrote above. When it comes to bureaucracy, suddenly you're made of pure energy.

In fact, I did something like the latter -- but only to get a bureaucrat off my back, not because I agreed with that option. When you claimed (on your Talk page) that my action showed that I must "essentially" be agreeing with you, I deleted my contribution, because I realized I'd just compromised my personal principles as an editor: when anyone (even an admin) insists on pro forma non-commonsense compliance with a guideline, especially after this person has a history arguing from what turns out to be ignorance of the overriding policy (WP:PRESERVE, which you yourself admit you got wrong in your first amputation of this influences list), I should just ignore that editor if common sense interpretation of the guideline, in the context of the article's history (something I'm wearily acquainted with here) tells me that the editor is wrong.

What else does common sense tell us here?

• Common sense says that simple web searches easily verify that these influences are major, and not a matter of controversy. This is not a case of adding everybody Krugman ever mentioned positively in passing, or talked to at a conference -- the list would have a thousand names in that case.
• Common sense says that if some ideologue suffering from some considerable ignorance of the subject (they are legion - do a google blog search on Krugman) is likely to show up at any moment and insert tendentious phrasing (they will, check the article history), you should prioritize adding any useful information at all over adding it in the perfect way. When WP:BATTLEGROUND violators are an inevitable reality to be coped with at unpredictable intervals, tactically, it's wiser to make shorter contributions. Adding to a list (however "messy") is shortest of all.
• Common sense says that economics is a complex subject, and getting the description of an particular theoretical influence right is going to take a lot more effort than if the subject is, say, basketball -- but common sense also says that's no reason in itself not to mention important influences somewhere, however briefly.
• Common sense says that if an editor, feeling he can't shape information perfectly for lack of time and energy (and, I'd say in this case, what seems to be a lack of adequate knowledge), actually removes useful information from an article where that information has been an improvement, leaving the article incorrect and reflecting negatively on a living person, while citing guidelines as if they were policy but not even getting actual policy right ... well, common sense says we should be seriously concerned when it turns out this editor is also an administrator. Yakushima (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Really improving the article? Give it a try, Sphilbrick

SPhilbrick, with his history of invocations of policies about Infobox MOS that turn out to actually be guidelines, and violations of what are actual time-tested policies like WP:PRESERVE (which he finds a bit of a nuisance, he "feels" it should "evolve"), has actually done nothing on this article recently that I can see except remove useful information because

• he doesn't like where it shows up
• he is unwilling to do the work to properly locate it.

Well, I'm here to help -- if he's willing to take it the rest of the way. Let's do a little experiment in cooperative editing. I'm going to write a pair of sentences, offering one RS hitherto used only for footnotes in erstwhile versions of the infobox "influences" list. The two sentences leave direct mention of one of the since-deleted "influences" (possibly the most important one), so that they could (for now, anyway) satisfy SPhilbrick's requirements for listing in an infobox. Here's the passage.

"Krugman's initial views on free trade -- strongly in favor of it -- were informed by various mentors, including Rudi Dornbusch, his dissertation advisor, who was himself an expert on international trade. Krugman has since backed away from his former position."

Dornbusch's role is left to the alert reader. The two citations I propose for the second sentence are these:

• Arvind Subramian (June 2006). "Economist as Crusader". Finance & Development. International Monetary Fund - External Relations Department. ... these days, even while disavowing overtly protectionist positions, Krugman's columns can sometimes have a protectionist tenor that disconcerts his purist colleagues.
• Clive Crook (February 8, 2009). "Politics is damaging the credibility of economics". Financial Times. Retrieved 2011-12-14. I had thought [economists] would at least agree that raising trade barriers at a time like this must be a bad idea. Then I read Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, Princeton professor, and New York Times columnist, explain that raising tariffs – though perhaps unwise for other reasons - "can make the world better off"

If SPhilbrick thinks the sentences I just wrote pass muster (and why shouldn't they? After all, they cite and quote sources that seem to clear the RS bar easily) I invite him to paste it into some relevant section of the article with the citations attached. We might then be allowed (by SPhilbrick) to add Rudi Dornbusch, Krugman's main mentor as a graduate student, as an "influence" in the infobox. Even though I did all the real work on these two sentences (trust me, it's not plagiarized), I'll give SPhilbrick some credit for doing actual work on this very difficult article (BLP + contentious + economics) -- IF he does the right thing with material I just supplied. Or even some approximation thereof. C'mon, SPhilbrick: show us that you can find a place in the real trenches of this article, that you're not just here to boss us around, OK? Yakushima (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not interested in getting into the real trenches of this article. I'm working on reviewing a CCI, and there are about 6000 items left to review. When that is done, if you'd like to work together, I will. As for the previous section, sorry, tl;dr. If you have an important point, identify it and I'll respond, otherwise, I support your plan to work on the article.--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're too busy to read responses, you're too busy to facilitate improvements to this article. It's knowledge-intensive, it's contentious, it's BLP. Yakushima (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to other readers: I've identified important points repeatedly, I've asked SPhilbrick repeatedly to respond, and he either (1) claims he's answered all my questions, or (2) responds to relatively minor points instead, or (3) simply doesn't answer. His deletions from the influences list (initially in violation of WP:PRESERVE - by an admin?!) removed useful information. His second deletion of that list (plus my extensions of it, plus my citations on all additions) removed even more useful information. He cites infobox guidelines as justification. Guidelines don't matter if, in how you bring about compliance, you violate policy. Deleting influences in a way that makes Krugman look like a dinosaur in his own field (influenced only by Keynes and Hicks?! WTF?!) leaves an impression that's both inaccurate and negative. We don't do that in BLP.

The influences list gets restored, ugly as it is. It gets restored NOW. If you want to work with me on then getting the article into compliance with the infobox guidelines on "influences" for economists, I'm happy to help, not least because I think it's actually a good guideline albeit for a not-so-good metadata category (I don't like "influences", but that's an issue for another day). For now, being in compliance with policy is what matters more. Making deletions that cast the subject of a BLP in a negative light, and inaccurately so, is a policy violation. If SPhilbrick doesn't know better in this case, it's because his knowledge of the subject is not great enough to make that judgement. (If "great" is quite the word I'm looking for.) Yakushima (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read every single word of the wall of text. MEGO. If you cannot find a way to make your point succinctly, you will find that it gets lost.

You keep repeating some of the same points, even after I after I respond, in a classic case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You keep saying that I violated PRESERVE, yet when I quote the actual relevant part of the policy supporting my edit, you simply repeat the charge without even attempting to explain yourself. [Note from Yakushima: Readers are invited to go look at bolded text in WP:IBX where I do admit error in repeating the accusation after his second deletion, and do explain myself. In any case, the REAL key point here is not WP:PRESERVE, it's WP:BLP, a much more compelling policy. I haven't seen where SPhilbrick addresses this overriding issue, no matter how directly or how often I bring it up with him. Do you?]

You need to read BRD. I know it isn't a policy, but if you choose to reject it, suggest an alternative.

N.B, YK: How about finally reading my rationale for why you're committing WP:BLP violations, and responding to it? I've told you a number of times now. What "compromise" can we possibly reach if you don't even acknowledge the most compelling issue?]

I have removed material in accordance with policy and guidelines,

[N.B, YK: citing two guidelines, Sphilbrick initially removed useful material in violation of WP:PRESERVE, and then, after I pointed that out, he removed even more useful material, with much-improved sourcing, this time in compliance with WP:PRESERVE. But both times -- and this third time -- he was in violation of WP:BLP. By the second time, at least, he should have known it -- IF he'd read what I wrote. Here and there, he confesses he hasn't, and maybe that's why he keeps missing my point about WP:BLP vio. But even if so, doesn't that put HIM in violation of WP:BRD?]

you've reverted without pointing out an overriding reason.

[N.B, YK: My edit summary [9] on that revert reads as follows, and please note the AGF implied by "unwitting": "deletion was an unwitting WP:BLP vio -- Krugman's influences are very much from his contemporaries, he's no dinosaur in his own field)". SPhilbrick either failed to read that summary (on top of all his other neglected reading of my argument from WP:BLP) or he's simply lying to you here.]

You need to establish a consensus to make a edit that doesn't conform to guidelines.

[N.B, YK: I don't need to establish ANY consensus to revert a change that violates WP:BLP. We're supposed to remedy such violations ASAP. Attempting to make you aware of this hasn't worked. You haven't told me how I'm wrong in my verdict. Nor has anyone else. So I move without you.]

That's all it takes, but you haven't done that. Further such edits without consensus may be viewed as vandalism [Good point, I retract "vandalism", it is edit warring SPhilbrick]

[N.B, YK: I'm not even in 3RR territory but Sphilbrick is crying "vandalism". ALL of the "influences" names are those of genuine, and quite strong, influences on Krugman's economic thinking. More could be added without strain: Minsky, Fisher and Koo, for starters. I've even started getting into compliance with Infobox MOS guideline and economist Infobox guidelines in the process of illuminating this fact -- but my changes are VANDALISM to SPhilbrick?.].

--SPhilbrickT 13:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The original addition of the influences to the infobox, but not the main article was BOLD, but it was reverted. The next step is discussion, which is occuring, but it is not close to consensus. Repeated addition, without consensus is not BOLD it is disruptive. Please do not add the material again until you have gained consensus. That's not just a policy, it is part of the FIVEPILLARS.--SPhilbrickT 13:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"You keep repeating some of the same points, even after I after I respond" ... you have never, to my knowledge, responded to the following repeated point: Making Paul Krugman, a modern economist, look like he was influenced by only a few (first one, then two, now three) economists in the entire world (the first two long dead, and now the third, Samuelson, more recently dead long after his productive years were over) is not just technically incorrect. It reflects negatively on a living person -- something we don't do (intentionally) in BLP. I have probably told you this four times, if not more, on different talk pages. I have asked you why you doesn't think so. I still haven't seen where you've responded. This is NOT cooperative editing. You are prioritizing a guideline over a very important policy: WP:BLP. You want to arrive at consensus, but you are apparently unwilling to apply any reasoning process to the most important point of contention here: WP:BLP violation. There is no point in trying to reach any consensus defined to include you until you do come to reason. The list of influences will be restored. Now. Characterizing that restoration of useful information as "vandalism", and taking action as if it were vandalism, is only going to land you in hot water, sooner or later, with other admins. And you must know it, if you haven't simply gone insane. Back off. Yakushima (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of these claims have nothing to do with the Krugman article per se, but are misunderstandings of policies, guidelines, and community mores, so I will respond on editor's talk page, and spare those interested in Krugman.--SPhilbrickT 13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Readers actually interested in Krugman might wonder why you think it's some kind of joke when I say leaving his influences just at Keynes (as you chose to do at one point), or at Keynes and Hicks (as you did with another deletion), or just at Keynes, Hicks and Samuelson (as you did with yet a third deletion) is a violation of WP:BLP. Krugman has been attacked from within his own profession for not really knowing macroeconomics. He is attacked from outside his profession as dated in his knowledge of the field. Wikipedia should not be playing to these perceptions. It should be showing the truth: that he's heavily influenced by contemporaries, not just major figures from 50 years ago. Deleting this useful information is WP:BLP violation. But when I say that, SPhilbrick responds (very belatedly -- Dec 15th) that he thought I was joking.[10] Yakushima (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It always ruins a joke to explain it. But since I wasn't joking, I wonder if SPhilbrick can explain why he thought I was? Yakushima (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

SPhilbrick removes Minsky as infobox influence even though WP:IBX-compliant

I actually checked first to see if Minsky was mentioned as an influence. SPhilbrick simply reverted without checking.[11] Yakushima (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the edit-warring and wikilawyering

You get points for cleverness - adding material in violation of guidelines, and without getting the consensus of editors is normally not allowed. Claiming it is a BLP violation is a clever way to wiki-lawyer, but as Lincoln tells us, you you can't just claim something is a BLP violation. You've raised the issue at BLPN, let's see what others have to say.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.

• Extensively cited, accurate information was restored to avoid WP:BLP vio.
• SPhilbrick has told me he assumed that I was joking when I made the case he was violating WP:BLP, which I did quite heatedly, several times. That assumption violates AGF.
• SPhilbrick's claim here that I "just claim something is a BLP violation," as if I'm doing it for the first time in my edit summary, is disingenuous, to say the least. I have made a detailed case for WP:BLP vio, over and over, on this talk page, on the Infobox MOS (WP:IBX) talk page, and on Sphilbrick's Talk page. I have repeatedly challenged him to show where my reasoning was wrong. At best, and only very lately, he has responded with a rather unlikely reader scenario.
• SPhilbrick, in violation of AGF, has claimed I was just putting up "walls of text" to "see what would stick."
• SPhilbrick admits (more than once, IIRC) to simply not reading what I wrote in those "walls of text".
• SPhilbrick admits to not being interested in who has actually influenced Paul Krugman's work in economics.
• SPhilbrick had to be told (by me) about WP:PRESERVE before complying with it.
• This whole fracas started when SPhilbrick deleted Hicks from "influences", leaving only Keynes, absurdly enough, citing for support "policy" what was in fact only a couple of guidelines.

In short, from the very beginning, there was very little no reason to take Sphilbrick seriously on this particular issue, except perhaps that he's an admin. Now, there's none at all. I have filed a report at the BLP Noticeboard about this issue, including a summary of his behavior. In the meantime, since BLP vio is an explicit exception to 3RR, I'll just keep undoing his reverts, with the same edit summary every time. As I get time over the next week, I'll also be getting the "influences" into compliance with those infobox guidelines SPhilbrick prioritizes above all else in this issue. After all, they really are pretty good guidelines, especially considering how problematic an "influences" field is in the first place, in the case of economists. I will not be arguing with SPhilbrick anymore. I'll just wait for the BLP Noticeboard adjudication, and keep undoing his reverts in the meantime. Yakushima (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin MastCell has told me he'll block me if I don't self-revert, after giving me an hour to do it. [12] (That was some hours ago.) As I understand the BLP exception to 3RR, however, he's actually supposed to come here and try to reach consensus on the Talk page, if he wants to start taking action on the issue. Haven't seen him here at all. Yakushima (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my lack of point by point response does not constitute acceptance of any of these claims. It's not worth the time. I've responded to many of these false claims at User:Yakushima's talk page, I won't repeat them here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A particular influence from Dixit - ideas on how to document it?

There are several, I know, but you've got to start somewhere. One interesting source is, unfortunately, from Dixit himself:[13]

When future movements of exchange rates are uncertain, so is their future profitability. Therefore they find an option value in the status quo-in waiting to observe a little more of the evolution of the rate. This idea was developed in [32]; see also my own contribution (Dixit, 1989). Krugman put this together into an overall view of exchange rate volatility in general equilibrium in [3, Ch. 2].....

Between Dixit saying so, and Krugman citing Dixit on this very point in his own work, you've got something as good as secondary sourcing, I think. Though I admit I'd prefer another source entirely mentioning this connection independently. The topic is Dynamics of Trade and Exchange Rates, so there's a question of precisely where to fit it in the article. In "New Trade Theory"? I'm not sure it's solidly in that category. In any case, it might merit a small paragraph of its own. No big hurry (unless, um, you're SPhilbrick, I guess), and I'd like to get this right. Any ideas? Yakushima (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Seeking professional help (as it were): from John Shandy [14], and from Lawrence Khoo [15], so far.

In some ways Jagdish Bhagwati and Avinash Dixit's work anticipates Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography. Dixit has written well of Krugman,[16][17] and Krugman has also mentioned Dixit is positive ways. I personally believe that Dixit had a large influence on Krugman's earlier work, but I unfortunately cannot provide the relevant citations to back this up. LK (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting the infobox to Sphilbrick's version

I see Yakushima's non-standard addition to the infobox is still there. I'm going to revert (the infobox only) to the last version by Sphilbrick, per my response to Yakushima's query on the BLP noticeboard here. Yakushima, I'm now the third experienced admin to tell you you're mistaken about the infobox. Please don't edit war any more. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC).

If you're an experienced admin, why did you leave the incorrect edit summary "(Reverting (the infobox only) to last version by Sphilbrick.[...].)"? Your revert removed references from the main text. If you'd removed the references intentionally (I'm assuming you did not), it would plausibly be vandalism. Moreover, these references were for additions to the main text that I made to bring ever more of the infobox influences into compliance with the economist infobox guideline.

Whatever you mean by "non-standard", Bishonen, you certainly can't mean "vanishingly rare" -- probably a majority of infoboxes across Wikipedia violate WP:IBX. Including the majority of infoboxes in articles originated by SPhilbrick himself (unless he has since "remedied" all those flaws, after I pointed them out.) Why, in the very first article of those you list in your own featured creations, John Vanbrugh, I see two WP:IBX violations of the same rule you're trying to enforce here.

Compliance (eventually, anyway) with the economist infobox guideline is a worthy project, one that I've not only endorsed, but am actively working on. Strangely, I seem to be the only one working constructively on it.

To summarize my position yet again:

• I think the economist infobox guideline is a good one; indeed, I've said so several times, on several talk pages.
• However, perfection is sometimes the enemy of the good. Somebody (not me) added a list of genuine influences on Krugman. To delete useful information after it's been pointed out that it's useful, leaving the subject of the article looking like a dinosaur in his own field, violates WP:BLP.
• Even after I supplied citations for influences, SPhilbrick deleted them.

SPhilbrick finally claimed he thought my claim of WP:BLP violation was "a joke", but not until I pressed him for the third or fourth time on this point. He still hasn't said why he thinks anyone would think it was a joke. He also claims that his assumption that I was joking didn't violate AGF. This makes no sense to me either. I've always made my case in the context of serious (if sometimes overheated) Talk page comments.

The only real argument I've heard against my case is that "no reasonable person" would interpret influences listing only Keynes (and the much lesser-known Hicks) as making Paul Krugman look dated. But there are plenty of reasonable people who know very little about economics except that (1) there's this economist named Paul Krugman, who's some kind of leftist, and (2) there was also this economist named Keynes who was some kind of leftist from long ago who thought that increasing government spending was always justified. This BLP should be setting these uninformed-but-reasonable people straight, among other things.

Wikipedia has a duty to inform. Paul Krugman's influences go well beyond Keynes and Hicks, whose work is very important but somewhat dated (and beyond Samuelson, an influence I added and got into conformance with economist infobox guidelines only recently -- getting only interference, no constructive edits, from SPhilbrick.) If really you want to improve the article, don't make edits that destroy citations, and that remove useful, well-cited (albeit incompletely explained) information from the article, while leaving the subject of a BLP looking like a dinosaur in his own field. And please remember: as long as there's a dispute about whether a revert is a good faith edit to avoid WP:BLP vio, 3RR doesn't apply. Do you want to dispute my WP:BLP reasoning? Do it here on the Talk page, to try to reach consensus, as BLP/3RR policy requires. Yakushima (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said "3RR doesn't apply to BLP vios"

You made the claim at Wikipedia:BLPN#Paul_Krugman, but got no support, and a clear statement that your view is wrong.

Please undo your revert, and I'll clean up the references, if you aren't willing to. While I will not block you, because I'm involved, you are asking for a block by citing false arguments, and continuing to edit war.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To any other editor who will listen: I got a clear statement that my view is wrong, from Bishonen, but I did NOT get a any statement from Bishonen explaining WHY my view is wrong -- i.e., why this isn't an allowable exception to what is only a guideline, and moreover (in the case of WP:IBX) a guideline so weak and/or obscure that Bishonen and SPhilbrick themselves are easily seen to violate it. All I got from Bishonen was what amounts to "you're wrong because I said so." THAT's not in conformance with BLP/3RR. He's supposed to come to this talk page and discuss the issue to try to reach consensus.

Here's my proposal for consensus:

• I will continue to work (alone if I have to) on getting the infobox influences list into compliance with the guidelines for economist bio infoboxes
• The admins who have concerned themselves so far will desist from interfering with such real progress on the article, and especially by refraining from reverts and any other edits that remove the reliable sources I've turning up to verify the influences.

Has anybody else got another "there's no guideline exception here because I'm telling you so" response? If so, please keep it to yourself and go edit some other article. Yakushima (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the infobox should not contain any citations. The infobox should only summarize that which is presented and cited in the article text. Therefore, while it can certainly list influencers and influencees, the details of these should be in the article text and so should the citations. Yworo (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, Yworo, in view of two facts, viz.

• the average infobox contains citations (including, by the way, some of first infoboxes of yours I see[18][19], citations that, moreover, were added by you yourself[20][21][22] and never removed)
• the average opponent of my position here is the author of an article (numerous articles in at least one case) containing multiple violations of WP:IBX -- again, including you as well, see e.g., [23][24]

I don't see the point of paying a whole lot of attention to anyone's opinion on the applicability of the economist infobox guideline unless they also show themselves willing to remedy the problem here without deleting existing, useful information. Which is the way I'm trying to do it: in the spirit of the time-honored WP:PRESERVE policy, not merely following the letter of it when prompted, as in the case of SPhilbrick. Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. But c'mon: you're going after me for pointing out OTHERSTUFF, when it's so easy for me to find that YOURSTUFF has the same problem? Bureaucrats insisting on what one of them has himself characterized as only a "narrow point" (see SPhilbrick above) should at least strive for consistency. But all I'm getting from them so far is shameless hypocrisy.

Yworo, are you up to actually addressing some serious issues in Paul Krugman? Or are you just here to nitpick on people (only me, it seems) who are seriously trying to get the article into compliance with the guidelines? It just so happens I'm doing it without taking the easy way out of simply deleting useful information not in compliance, deletions that incidentally make Paul Krugman look like a dinosaur in his own field, a violation of WP:BLP. Yakushima (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yakushima, your argument — that removing the disproportionately long list of influences from the infobox is a BLP violation — is a misinterpretation of the BLP policy. I'll try to clarify by a couple of hypothetical examples: imagine that Sphilbrick had added the sentence "Some people think Krugman is a dinosaur in the field, and has taken in none of the discussion since Keynes and John Hicks" somewhere in the article. (Sorry, SPhilbrick, I know that's a little far-fetched.) That would have been a BLP vio, and you, or anybody who saw it, would indeed have been encouraged to remove it, and 3RR wouldn't apply to such removals. What about if he put it more politely and added references? Say, "Some economists consider Krugman takes insufficient account the progress in the field made since Keynes and Hicks. [Footnote footnote footnote, to economists who have at some time said something like it.]") No, that's also a BLP vio, only more sly. But removing the later influences from the infobox is not a BLP vio, because it doesn't imply that Krugman's expertise is dated. You see the difference? Everything in the infobox is extremely summarised; only the few utterly central influences go there. The summary of the article in the lede (the bit next to the infobox, and the self-evident go-to place for any reader who wants a brief overview of Krugman's standing) makes it extremely clear how impressive, and consequently not-dated, Krugman's career is. The first paragraph alone mentions his distinguished posts at The London School of Economics! At Princeton! And the New York Times op-ed column! And, while the reader is still reeling from these august names, the final blow: the prestigious semi-Nobel Prize for economics. Look, why would people even look up this article? Because they want to know what Krugman has achieved. Are any of them going to be content with reading the infobox, and thinking "Oh, look, what few and ancient influences, K must be a dinosaur"? No. Really, no. OK, so you weren't joking, but that doesn't stop your BLP/3RR argument from being… hmmm. Well, the politest way I can characterise it is as flying in the face of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Adherence.

Btw, I and many others have a low opinion of BLP infoboxes altogether; if readers look only at the infobox, the idea they take away of the person will normally be a caricature, because people and their achievements are just too round to fit into a tiny square box. Let's remove the infobox by all means, if you feel it doesn't do justice to Krugman. It doesn't. But then they hardly ever do.

Since you mention the John Vanbrugh infobox, I have a particular dislike of that one. You seem to suppose I must have added it myself, since I and another editor wrote the article in 2005. Er, no. That's not how wikipedia works. I and others have tried to defend that article against the infobox fanatics, but there comes a point of diminishing returns, where one needs to disengage, and not invest personal emotion in these things. Don't you agree?

P.S. I've replied on my user talkpage to your post there. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

"...it doesn't imply that Krugman's expertise is dated. You see the difference?"

No, I don't.

Infoboxes are supposed to summarize a reasonably complete article. In the case of "influences" in this infobox, the article doesn't. Why not? Why is it incomplete where it should be much clearer: on Paul Krugman's actual contributions to the technical field in which he earned his notability? Because (as I've repeated endlessly on these threads) most of us who know anything about how to fill that gap are more often in the exhausting process of dealing with much less subtle WP:BLP violations, usually coming from editors clearly motivated by a desire to see more detraction of this highly polarizing figure. Perhaps that's why most of us who could remedy this deficiency in the article, in editing it over the period of over a year and a half, seeing the "influences" list steadily grow (from laughably only "Keynes") in ways that hardly seemed controversial, just let it grow.

The lack of treatment of these influences in the main text is not a demerit of the infobox itself. The main demerit is that it took so long to lengthen that list, and that it's taking so long to justify it to those to whom it's not obvious.

If you leave influences only at dated figures, for any person, it directly implies that the person has not been significantly influenced by anyone more contemporary. In economics, leaving it at Keynes, Hicks and Samuelson wouldn't have gotten Paul Krugman a job at a rural community college econ department, much less MIT, Berkeley, Stanford and Princeton. And since there are plenty of people (including a Nobel laureate who is frequently cited as a reliable source in newspapers that easily meet RS themselves) who are quite happy to leave that impression about Paul Krugman, it's incumbent on the infobox to bear the weight of showing reasonable people arriving at the article that any such incorrect impression is wrong, until such time as the main text's deficiencies can be remedied.

As for this - "... only the few utterly central influences go there" -- even if the guideline says so (where?), I've tried to make the point, over and over, that Paul Krugman actually doesn't have any "utterly central influences". He made his mark in three different areas of econ to get the Clark medal, and went on to become a not-insignificant force in macro after that. It's because he's very, very good at drawing on, and often synthesizing, multiple influences. We're talking about a guideline, here, not policy. "Occasional exceptions apply". The burden is on YOU to show that Krugman is unexceptional in this respect. I don't think you'll succeed.

As for your argument that the lede covers the necessary ground to correct people who might be starting with impression (all too easily gained) that Krugman routinely overreaches into economic specialties where his knowledge is dated or vestigial ... well, I give you the lede for Nobel laureated economist Friedrich Hayek. There, you will read nothing about he had not been a practicing economist for literally decades when he got the prize. (BTW: Hayek's list of "influences" is much, much longer than for Krugman's. In fact, the number of names violating the guideline under discussion here approaches the length of the list for Krugman: Kant, Hume, Ferguson, Locke, Peters are not mentioned in the main text. And how does Tocqueville qualify as "central" in Hayek's case? One single mention: "The title was inspired by the French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the "road to servitude".[23]". Yes, I know that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. But just go and try to delete those names under the claimed guideline and watch the fireworks begin.)

In short, there is no contradiction between "Econ Nobel laureate" and "dinosaur in his own field." By 1974, Hayek was a dinosaur, having not practiced in almost 35 years. The glittering resume after 1950 is in philosophy. Whereas Paul Krugman breaks some modest ground in academic economics publications even this year, see, e.g., [25], notwithstanding the frequently repeated gibe that he's no longer doing anything significant in a field he has abandoned for partisan commentary -- another impression Wikipedia should disabuse casual readers of.

"Let's remove the infobox by all means, if you feel it doesn't do justice to Krugman." I have a better idea: let's get rid of the influences list in this infobox, after restoring it to restore all the citations I that worked to create, to verify influences, and after working each name into the text with due weight. That way, the article steadily improves, and readers get a more accurate picture of Paul Krugman in the meantime. I've repeated the key points of this proposal over and over. SPhilbrick never addresses them. Only the idea of finally ridding this article of an "influences" list in the infobox is new. Unless your proposal counts as a way to do it. Yakushima (talk)

Who are these "reasonable people" you speak of?

I've been told by more than one admin in this dispute over the influences list in the infobox that my argument from WP:BLP makes no sense. "No reasonable person," they say, would conclude (or find support for) anything negative from such a sharply abbreviated list of such now-dated economists as simply "Keynes" (as SPhilbrick left it at one point), or "Keynes" and "Hicks" (as he left it another), or "Keynes", "Hicks" and "Samuelson" -- which Sphilbrick and others deem more acceptable than a well-cited list including quite a number of other undeniable influences.

Their argument from supposed "reaonable people" only exposes their ignorance of the controversies around Paul Krugman. And that ignorance -- if they choose not to remedy it -- should disqualify them from making any judgment. (At least according to my mental model of "reasonable person.")

To illustrate what "reasonable people" might reasonably conclude that's wildly at variance with the facts.

(1) Let's say Harvard's Robert J. Barro, with an average rank RePEc score 11 points better than Krugman's and only 4th from the top (which means he's probably short-listed for the Nobel), who's enough of a respected opinion leader to have written several Wall Street Journal op-eds about U.S. economic policy, says of a certain economist that he "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics." Wouldn't any reasonable person believe Barro? In particular, why would he trash the reputation of an economist who had done significant work in Keynesian economics? Perhaps he was talking about Donald Luskin, who never seems to dispute being characterized as an economist even though he dropped out of college? Fair enough, right?

(2) Let's say Nobel laureate Edward C. Prescott, with an average rank RePEc score two points above Krugman's, himself enough of a respected opinion leader to have penned (or been cited as a reliable source in) several Wall Street Journal op-eds, says of another economist that he "doesn't command respect in the profession." Should we believe him? Why not? Why would he lie, or be so ignorant of that person's work? Perhaps Prescott was talking about Ben Stein, who is often described on op-ed pages as an economist even though he never practiced (unless playing a high school econ teacher in "Ferris Bueller's day off" counts as "practice.") Fair enough, right?

Well, you guessed it: both of the above esteemed economists were talking about Paul Krugman. You can read their well-sourced quotes at the following link:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

which might be familiar to some of you here.

This is the state of debate around Paul Krugman: his ill-informed detractors are so legion, and in the above-quoted cases, so respectable, that truly reasonable people might be excused for not knowing what to think. A BLP should not encourage anyone in incorrect beliefs about a person. By leaving Krugman's influence at only three dead economists, one who was dead decades before Krugman began studying the subject, the other two quite aged and well past their peaks when Krugman entered the profession, you play to the perception that Robert Barro and Edward Prescott were trying to create in the minds of reasonable people. Barro and Prescott can do that if they like. But Wikipedia should not. Yakushima (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@Yakushima - I posted a serious proposal here: User_talk:Yakushima#I_have_a_serious_proposal. I hope you will take it seriously.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If SPhilbrick had used the word "serious" only once, I might not have concluded that he was joking here. But he used it twice. And according to SPhilbrick, to think that an editor must be joking actually requires an assumption of good faith editing, not a violation of AGF.[26] Unless he was also joking about that.

Issues of principle, as enshrined in WP:BLP and WP:PRESERVE, are not to be settled with horsetrading. For an admin to offer a horsetrade solution on an issue of principle strikes me as unethical, to be honest. If he's serious, he's basically using his power of intimidation as an admin to say, "Hey, Yakushima, I'll keep you out of trouble if you do some scutwork for me." Or is that kind of thing actually OK on Wikipedia? Well, then: I, although a relatively powerless editor, would have the right to say, "Hey, SPhilbrick, I won't take a complaint about your behavior to the appropriate noticeboard as long you just leave me alone to do what I'm trying to do: get this article into compliance with the economist infobox guidelines. But without deleting useful information in the meantime. Moreover, deleting it in a way that makes Paul Krugman look like a dinosaur in his own field -- a FALSE IMPRESSION THAT EVEN SOME MAJOR ECONOMISTS HAVE PROPAGATED, AND NO DOUBT WITH SOME SUCCESS AMONG SOME REASONABLE PEOPLE, BY VIRTUE OF THESE ECONOMISTS' OTHERWISE-STELLAR REPUTATIONS." Yakushima (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to clutter up this page refuting the "unethical charge" which has nothing to do with Krugman, so I took it to your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

True to form, SPhilbrick

• fails to respond to the argument I start this thread with (perhaps he's going to tell me much later that he again thought I was joking again, and that he again thought it was OK to not tell me he thought it was a joke at the time), and
• takes the debate off somewhere else when his behavior starts to look problematic.

If you think I'm wrong, above, tell me why I'm wrong. Isn't that what WP:BRD requires? Not some weird horsetrade, that's for sure. Yakushima (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that RePEc score should be considered in this article? TFD (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, Deuces. We're not debating whether RePEc scores should be considered in this article. RePEc is designed into the infobox for economists. Are you proposing that it be dropped? If so, why don't you do that on the talk page for that particular infobox? Or are you actually ignorant of the function and value of RePEc, and perhaps of citation index calculations in general, in assessing the notability and eminence of a given academic? Or is it that you have no idea how important Barro or Prescott have been in their field? If so, that's not something to be pursued in this debate. Or (taking a cue here from SPhilbrick): are you joking? Yakushima (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

To both sides in this debate. Ease up a bit, it's not that important an issue. Try to compromise instead of reverting.

I DO have a reasonable compromise. It's a strategy I've been pursuing despite reverts of my edits that trash useful references, a violation of WP:PRESERVE in themselves. I'm keeping the infobox listing and the references I added as useful information WHILE getting the article text into compliance with the economist infobox guidelines. I've gotten no help with this, nothing but interference in fact. I've even been told by SPhilbrick that my objections from WP:BLP must have been "a joke", and only after presenting those objections several times in the context of comments in which I was obviously not joking. Now this same Sphilbrick is offering some weird horsetrade instead of trying to settle the matter on principle. (See above.) There's no basis for compromise with an admin who treats people that way. Yakushima (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that no reasonable person (using the legal definition of reasonable person) should draw inferences about Krugman's work based on influences listed in the info box. However, Yakushima also makes a valid point that many of Krugman's detractors are not reasonable, and can use it to further spread misinformation.

Furthermore, some of these detractors are perhaps ordinarily very reasonable, and in any case highly respected -- the list hardly ends with Prescott and Barro. To leave the economist infobox closer to their picture of Krugman gives WP:UNDUE weight to opinions that are demonstrably false. Readers primed to see Krugman in the same terms will have their preconceptions reinforced by a part of the article -- the infobox -- whose function it is to summarize the subject for readers who may or may not have the time to read the whole damned article (and this one is getting very long, isn't it?) Yakushima (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How about just listing a few more obvious influences in the infobox, (Minsky, Dixit and Koo maybe?) and adding a sentence or two to the article about these people. We can then leave this issue behind us. LK (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm picking on details of your proposal, but I just don't think it's that simple. For example, Minsky was a late addition to the list, because he's a late addition to almost every contemporary economist's list. This because everybody mostly ignored him until, starting in 2007, he proved to be right after all, and about an earth-shakingly important point.

Or take Dixit -- but no Stiglitz? If Dixit's main influence (available in RS, anyway) is through Dixit-Stiglitz (which IIRC forms much of the foundation for two of the strands of work for which Krugman got the Clark medal, then the Nobel), why list Dixit but not Stiglitz? Moreover, Krugman himself, even as he nods recently toward Minsky and Koo, also has differences with both, raising the question of whether there aren't other economists who would have more pride of place in any shorter list.

But should the list be shorter? If we have to have an "influences" list at all (I'm no fan of it; see my agreement with Volunteer Marek above), I think it's going to be pretty long. But not nearly as long as Hayek's, with 18 names, and, by the way, with almost as many names in violation of the economist infobox guidelines at issue here as the longest list for Krugman I've had so far, and with some of those names pretty questionable from the get-go.

Look, Krugman got the Clark medal and then the Nobel for work in three different (albeit interrelated) areas, and he has, since doing that award-winning work, been influential in macroeconomics through yet more academic work. At this writing, the most recent revert's edit summary complained of an "overstuffed infobox". But maybe such "overstuffing" only represents reality (albeit lamely)? Maybe Krugman is just an incredible work machine when it comes to absorbing influences and producing novel results from those inspirations? That's what his academic record is telling me, anyway. But I suppose my perception isn't available to those who won't bother themselves to look at that record. After all, looking at his academic record would be hard work. Whereas pushing what SPhilbrick himself has called a "narrow point" about compliance with a guideline (a guideline so obscure and unimportant that his own articles violate it as often, if not more often, than average) is so much easier. Yakushima (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

LK (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yakushima, one definition of insanity is when a person does the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. I suggest trying something else. I believe the other editors have suggested adding to the body of the article first. If those additions 'stick', we can add the influences to the infobox later. LK (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's one thing I did over and over again, LK, finally getting a different outcome: after I put a number of notices on editors' talk pages pointing to this discussion, one of them was bold enough to come here and make a comment going (somewhat) against the current of opinion: you. An actual economist.

And yes, other editors have said that influences could be added to the list in the infobox later, after there's corresponding text in the article. But there's only one editor who has actually done that, during this whole conflict. Me. Adding text supporting "influences" claims is not, by the way, "doing the same thing over and over". It's doing a different thing each time. And a positive, guideline-complying thing each time.

This article is BLP+controversial+technical. Editing it therefore requires unusual boldness, care, AND knowledge. And we're supposed to Be Bold, right? I am. They aren't. Over and over, they commit the same acts of cowardice (and ignorance), in the name of what the main obstructionist in all this (SPhilbrick) long ago conceded was only "narrow point". With the same result: the article moves backward, not forward, in what it's supposed to be doing: informing readers, however sketchily in the case of the infobox "influences" list.

They are far more repetitive than I am. Yet you have no harsh words for their "insanity"? Yakushima (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why I reverted Vision Thing's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FurrySings, you are violating WP:AGF. Anyway, most of what I did was to revert a series of Loonymonkey's edits [27] by which he removed number of criticisms, sometimes by using false rationale. -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's discuss, one at a time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup tag

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

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

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

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

"politically motivated"

The sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just Washington Post who reported it, similar point was made by Wall Street Journal: "With the committee's decision coming three weeks before the U.S. presidential election, the news sparked criticism that it was influenced by political considerations as well as academic achievements." [28] If two out of three major newspapers (and third is Krugman's own NYT) report it in their articles about Nobel award, that should make it notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you were concerned about due weight, I would suggest doing a search on Krugman's Nobel in reliable newspapers to identify all articles that have covered the issue;[29](> 5,000 articles) and then count the number of articles where 'politically motivated' is mentioned.[30](23 articles, of which many don't suggest that the prize award was politically motivated) This shows that it is tiny minority of articles. Hence it is undue weight. Please do keep in mind that this is how one should look at the issue if one were concerned about including material with due weight. LK (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first search is too encompassing since it covers last three years and counts every article in which 'Krugman' and 'Nobel' appear and Krugman is mostly described as a Nobel Laureate in articles that mention him. When we limit search of news articles to a time period of a month when his winning of Nobel Prize was announced (October 2008) and add 'Prize' Google News finds 66 articles, not >5000. [31]. More importantly, your search with words 'politically' 'motivated' is irrelevant since it couldn't find either Washington Post or Wall Street Journal article on Krugman receiving the prize. -- Vision Thing -- 13:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

partisanship

You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"standard"

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

It is "the standard textbook in international economics".[32] That means that if one googles ""International Economics: Theory and Policy" syllabus", one would expect to see the textbook is used in courses at MIT, Yale, Sloan, NYU, Texas A&M and other reputable universities.[33] TFD (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD is being a bit coy here, what he's trying to say is that if you google "International Economics: Theory and Policy"[34] you find that it is a standard textbook used in classes in many top universities, such as MIT, Yale, Sloan, NYU, Texas A&M, SDSU, and Vanderbilt. Also, this article[35] calls it a "standard textbook in international economics". LK (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Found a couple of books which refer to it as such. [36] [37] Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

You are lying. [38] -- Vision Thing -- 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

LK made a false statement in a way that I perceived as questioning my integrity. As for larger context here is one of his recent comments directed to me: [39]. -- Vision Thing -- 11:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"You are lying" is a personal attack. "You are mistaken" is a neutral statement. Kindly note the difference. In any case, I would note that two out of three of the sources given on this page do not include the word "undergraduate",[40][41] (excuse me for not checking the third) and yet you have edit warred to include it. I believe that demonstrates your thinking about this issue, and your purpose concerning the Krugman page. LK (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey Jewish News is a source of dubious reliability. Other two sources are good and one calls it "standard undergraduate textbook" and other just says "standard textbook". Neither calls it "college textbook" which is a description Furrystrings was insisting on and reverting to while using a source that calls it "undergraduate" [42]. So who is making a transgression here? -- Vision Thing -- 13:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Dispute

This dispute seems to be fueled by personal animosity and not Wikipedia policy. For example, Niall Ferguson's comments keep getting removed without any explanation why. Loonymonkey originally removed them [43] under false rationale that they are sourced to blog and now they just keep getting mass revert along with everything else with no reason given. -- Vision Thing -- 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the dispute is fueled by personal animosity, but I would say that the dispute is fueled by personal animosity towards Paul Krugman – a characteristic of many conservatives. The constant barrage of edits to bias this BLP negatively (more than half of the edits from last year if one cares to count[44]) is disruptive to Wikipedia and against policy. As evidence, I would note that almost all such attempts to throw in negative material is ultimately rejected, for using unreliable sources or using sources incorrectly, for undue weight, for quoting out of context, or for being otherwise flawed.

For example, note this egregious bit of SYN & BLP violation from this edit a few months ago:[45]

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

As I noted here,[46] if you search in the sources, what Krugman called 'bizarre' was not the argument that unemployment relief is a disincentive for unemployed individuals to seek new work, but rather, the view that "what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs". This was essentially an attack based on a quote taken out of context, passed off as fact, and sourced to a hack job by a biased journalist. LK (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

After prolonged discussion on talk consensus finally formed on how Controversies section should look like and this was it. If you care enough to look to comparison of versions of the articles then and now [47] you you will see that Controveries section got shorter for five sentences, while introduction got richer for "In a 2011 survey, US economics professors ranked Krugman as their favorite living economic thinker under the age of 60." main body for "In the summer preceding his Nobel Prize, Krugman was voted one of the world's top public intellectuals by half a million participants in an online poll conducted by Foreign Policy". And at the same time reference for The Economist considering him a "left-leaning pundit" was removed. -- Vision Thing -- 13:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The Daily Beast and Newsweek merged over a year ago so now the site of The Daily Beast is hosting Newsweek [48]. Anyway, that is sourced to both Newsweek and Bloomberg. -- Vision Thing -- 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Polls

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

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

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

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

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

I think that if it really was a notable fact how Krugman performed in these polls, it would have been picked up and mentioned by secondary sources which we then could cite. I think it's important when seeking to achieve a neutral PoV that mainly prominent secondary sources are used when trying to estimate the reaction to and popularity of someone or something. The sources for these polls are not secondary and are not that prominent (especially not the Econ Journal Watch which ranks #505 among economics journals [49]). I also agree with Vision Thing that extra caution should be used when citing online polls, as these are often easily manipulated. If there is a ranking which might be worth mention about Krugman, it may be that he in 2009 made it into the Time 100 list[50].TheFreeloader (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGF? Not only have you introduced provably false and defamatory material into this article,[51] you have also broken WP:POLITE[52] and have been admonished for it. LK (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

RfC

Should this article say the following:

1) "In the summer preceding his Nobel Prize, Krugman was voted one of the world's top public intellectuals by half a million participants in an online poll conducted by Foreign Policy." Source: online poll by Foreign Policy magazine [53]

2) "Some economists have raised questions whether the Swedish Academy decision to award him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was politically motivated." Sources: Washington Post [54] and Wall Street Journal [55]

3) "In a 2011 survey, US economics professors ranked Krugman as their favorite living economic thinker under the age of 60." Source: Econ Journal Watch [56]. Relatedly, should findings from the same survey that Krugman's academic admirers are "remarkably preponderantly Democratic" and that his blog was third favorite, after Gregory Mankiw's and Marginal Revolution, be included?

4) "He and The Economist also noted that Lyinginponds.com, which tracks partisanship among public intellectuals, has in most years from 2002–2008, ranked Krugman number 1 or number 2 among Democratic columnists for partisanship." Sources: Richard Posner [57] and The Economist [58]

5) "Harvard economic history professor Niall Ferguson expressed doubt that Krugman changes his position on fiscal deficits depending on the party in power. Ferguson also criticized Krugman for advocating fiscal stimulus in already highly indebted economy, warning that the United States will experience a Japanese-style 'lost decade'." Sources: Newsweek [59] and Bloomberg [60]

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

I vote to include 1.

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

I would include 1st half of 3.

Not include 4.

not include 5. Put in Niall Ferguson's page in Wikipedia.

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

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

I still object to 2:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, there is no prohibition. Are you still standing by your claim that Ferguson's criticism shouldn't be included because it is sourced to blogs? -- Vision Thing -- 09:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Objection This RFC is poorly formulated. There is no reason to lump all of these together. I object. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One underlying issue here is NPOV. It seems that some editors have one criteria for content that shows Krugman in good light, and other set for content that shows Krugman in bad light. For example, this paper was recently added in support of Krugman's views, if it were a paper that reached an opposite conclusion it would probably soon be removed per undue. -- Vision Thing -- 11:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's the underlying issue, but I note that you operate the same way, in reverse, and suggest that if you held an RFC on your own, personal behavior here, you'd find that the community wants you gone. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually all this started with me noticing that criticisms were being removed and praise added by Krugman fans and all I want is consistency with criteria for inclusion. However, do you have some useful advice, considering you had an experience with ban for disruptive editing? -- Vision Thing -- 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really appropriate, Vision Thing. These veiled (or not-so-veiled) insults at other editors, the lack of WP:AGF and the insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a "fan" or working for Krugman is growing increasingly tiresome. In general, departing from the subject at hand and making the argument about other editors is the quickest way to lose the argument. This RfC looks like it's going to wrap up without anyone supporting your position so hopefully, that will be the end of that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this RfC is going to end without consensus for any position. -- Vision Thing -- 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing unanimity with consensus. Consensus is pretty clear that the much of this material should not be added to the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Several people on this talk page objected to inclusion of survey and polls so there is no consensus for including them. Btw, you still haven't responded, are you still standing by your claim that Ferguson's criticism shouldn't be included because it is sourced to blogs? -- Vision Thing -- 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think #1 should not be included. I don't think internet polls can ever really be reliable. This is also why it is not mentioned in the article about Shawshank Redemption that the film is currently highest rated film on the IMDb top 250, even though I think many would say it is one of the things most notable about that film. And to add to that I would say it is nowhere near as notable, maybe one of the least notable things in this article, that Paul Krugman came in 30th in an internet poll which we do not even have third party sources confirming itself is notable. I do not understand why there keeps being support for including this poll; I think we may have descended into some degree of battleground mentality on this article, where it has become more important not to let the "opponent" get their way on anything, than to actually make a good article.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Public opinion polls should never be included in the main body of any article that leaves some kind of impression about the subject. It is like asking public opinion in a conservative society to determine whether homosexuality is right or wrong. This is why public oinion is not reliable source. But it can be included in a section titled "Public reception/Public image/Legacy/Influence" etc., we have this type of section in many articles about public figures. See, for example, Joseph_Stalin#Views_on_Stalin_in_the_Russian_Federation. I have a similar concern about Karl Marx where an opinion poll is included in the lead. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a public opinion poll should not be in the lead, but would be OK in a section titled "Public reception/Public image/Legacy/Influence". I have removed the opinion poll from the lead of Karl Marx. It shouldn't be in the lead in this article either. FurrySings (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This was not an opinion poll. This was an online poll with absolutely no validity in the least. Call it a caucus of Krugman fans. Arzel (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

I agree with the wording of the "Nobel memorial prize in economic science". As LooneyMonkey states in the edit summary, it uses the common name. Further, it also signifies that it is not actually a Nobel prize with the use of "memorial prize". This is also acceptable as there is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics and it is important to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Disagree. Alfred Nobel did not want to be associated with economists. the proper name is "The Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic sciences" and Wiki should reflect that. http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-nobel-family-dissociates-itself-from-the-economics-prize/~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit to influence

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

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

Please read the template instructions:

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

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

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

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

Info box discussion

which spilled over to some additional sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You put a tag on the article without starting a discussion section, and the edit summary only said "clean up".[61] If that's not a drive-by tag, nothing is. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia disallows original research and requires secondary sources for interpretation

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

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

Consensus U.S. economic policies section?

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

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

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

References

"Enron" section removal

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

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

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

Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

I wonder if Paul follows these discussions [62] (personally, I seriously doubt it)? But my point is this - what's important is not whether supporting the coin is a "joke" or a "serious joke" or whatever, but that

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

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

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

As this matter is currently being discussed at the open RfC[63], should't we be having this discussion over there and *NOT* here? Deicas (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is *so* prominent that Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC[64]: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman and the coin -- Exclude mention because it's WP:UNDUE!

The DRN discussion/case, on the coin topic, is about to close with a failed status. In the course of the DRN discussion, claims were made that Krugman's *any* mention, in Paul Krugman, of his endorsement of trillion dollar coin was WP:UNDUE. If you're going to make the UNDUE claim then, please, make it below.

Procedural aside: it might be a better idea copy the whole WP:UNDUE discussion from the DRN, and from above, and paste it below. But, *I* am not going to do that because I'm not sure that such an action would be proper Wikipedia edict..

Make your WP:UNDUE claims .... Deicas (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, we're not quite done yet at WP:DRN... Zad68 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't copypaste in any case! Copypasting discussions occurring elsewhere is not indeed proper procedure. With unnecessary copypasting, talkpages become harder to read and need more frequent archiving. It fills up talkpages with content that's actually instantly available elsewhere if you simply link to it. Here's a link to the DRN discussion you mention as it looks at this moment. I made a permanent link in case the discussion is archived soon; sometimes a dynamic link is preferable. Both kinds of links are easy to create per the step-by-step instructions in Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen: Excellent, on-point answer. Thank you, I'll follow your advice Deicas (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the failure of the DRN, I'm not sure of the next steps, but until hearing what they might be,

I'm happy to see if we can make progress on the talk page here.

However, I disagree that the burden is on me to provide an argument that the material is UNDUE. The material in question is in Wikipedia, in an article about the coin, and it is your contention that it should also be mentioned in Krugman's bio. Mentioning something in two different places is not unprecedented, but in cases where the exact same material is suitable for both places, there are some processes (template transclusion ) It isn't clear that we want to do that, but I thought I'd mention it, as it is not well-known, even to some regular editors. And while I've seen it, I've never done it.

The alternative is to argue it belongs both places, but the two versions do not have to be in sync. For that to happen, you or others have to make the case. It isn't up to me or anyone else to make a case for not doing something. For example, you could claim that because Krugman's comments about a trillion dollar coin are about a coin, we should have the information in coin. I'm not suggesting you are making such a claim, it is just a thought experiment to show that if you did want it in, and said that unless someone could come up with a convincing UNDUE argument, then it should be in. No, that's not how it works. Those arguing it should be in need to make the affirmative argument.

I have seen some convincing arguments that Krugman's comments belong in Wikipedia, but that's not what is needed. what is needed is an argument that coverage belongs in two places. Most of the arguments for inclusion are arguments the material deserves coverage. It is covered. You need to present an argument that the coverage in the article about the coin is not enough, there ought to be additional coverage in Krugman's bio. This is a very different claim, and I suggest that no one arguing for inclusion has properly understood the distinction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone arguing that any information be duplicated in both articles. All that is needed here is the breif mention with the link to the Trillion Dollar Coin article and any expansion within that article. This was the sentence in the article. It is brief and to the point. I am still not sure why some have such a problem with it. Although I think it should be slightly re-written with the second sentence as a possible solution. Arzel (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin, by the US Treasury via a "legal loophole", as a means to "sidestep" the US debt ceiling.

During the 2012-2013 US debt ceiling budget talks, Krugman endorsed the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin, by the US Treasury via a "legal loophole" as a means to sidestep the debt ceiling.

I think this is missing the context of why he suggests such as a possibility, and that others agree with him. Perhaps this is better handled in the main article on the subject. Insomesia (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.Volunteer Marek 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this catch-22 approach is pointless. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning Krugman's comments about the coin in this article would give them UNDUE weight. Remember that this article is an overview for people who want to know who Krugman is. He makes controversial economic/political comments in a lot of his columns. We can not (and should not try) to mention each and every one. We have to choose those that give the reader a significant insight into Krugman. I don't think his column on the coin does that. Certainly there are many other columns he has written that would do it better. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is saying this is controversial? It is an economic theory of thought, something that he, as a noted economist, has made a pretty big deal about. Let the reader decide whether it is significant. Many apparently think it is significant, I am not sure why you do not think so. Arzel (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Let the reader decide whether it is significant" is in stark opposition to Wikipedia policy. It is our job as encyclopedia writers to determine what is significant enough to include in our articles. In fact, it's the second of Wikipedia's five pillars. Zad68 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not our job to set ourselves up as the self-appointed arbiters of what's significant. Wikipedia's job is to be a PASSIVE conduit for what the sources say. If something is heavily covered in non-tabloidish reliable sources, if Wikipedia fails to cover it correspondingly the starting point is that the neutral point of view is not being respected, because editors are substituting their own judgment about what's significant and what isn't. The SOURCES decide what's significant. We pass that along. When in doubt, we pass along more rather than less, in order to err on the side of increasing knowledge.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The second pillar is NPOV, which is clearly not the argument here. Now if you want to argue some WP:NOTS then go right ahead. This is not an idiscriminate piece of information, and it has had considerable reporting in various RS's. Krugman even got into a tiff with John Stewart regarding this economic theory. Why don't you simply state clearly your opposition to this rather than throw out WP policies which you think back up your point of view. Arzel (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a fundamental part of WP:NPOV. Zad68 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer everyone to my comment at the recently closed DRN [65]:

Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin ... [is] ... *so* prominent Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC[19]: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage".

This is *large* level of notoriety does not sustain an UNDUE claim as a reason to exclude the citation in question from Paul Krugman. Thusly I claim to have refuted all assertions of WP:UNDUE in the section above. If you want to argue to the contrary then attack my reasoning.

If you want to argue that the text in Paul Krugman, describing Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is too long I remind you that this section is titled "Krugman and the coin -- Exclude mention because it's WP:UNDUE!". If you want to argue text length, then create a new section for that argument. I suggest you call it "I Claim The Trillion Dollar Coin text is TOO LONG!". Deicas (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For starters, something DID come out of the DR process, namely, a recommendation as to what the default should be absent a development of consensus otherwise, and that's to revert Marek's last reversion. Unfortunately, some editors are continuing to litigate that point (in one case by suggesting that my view be excluded when assessing whether there was a consensus) instead of admitting that they shouldn't have participated in the DR process in the first place if they weren't prepared to accept what the closer would eventually have to say. Secondly, Krugman's endorsement of the coin says a lot about his worldview. For some time now Krugman has been hammering away at the following contentions: 1) Policy makers continue to fail dismally in responding to the output gap 2) Central banks have increased the size of the monetary base and the effect of this on either inflation or output is nowhere to be found 3) If central banks were to ratchet up expectations of inflation over the medium term this would reduce real interest rates and have an expansionary effect on the economy. Minting the coin could potentially work where other measures have failed. Endorsing the coin is thus the natural extension of Krugman's views, including his views of the extent to which Republicans in Congress should be negotiated with, the extent to which the Bond vigilantes should be be worried about, and the extent to which the tut-tutting of the Very Serious People should be heeded. Krugman's views are more relevant to an article about Krugman than to an article about the coin given that Krugman's views did not inform the development of the coin idea (unlike the "bond vigilantes" and "Very Serious People", phrases that Krugman played a major role in developing). The only thing that's notable about Krugman from the perspective of the coin article is that he's got a wider readership than the several others who have written about it.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Bdell555: Your comment, above, are well taken but not not, in toto, on topic for this section (note section name: "Krugman and the coin -- Exclude mention because it's WP:UNDUE!")

I ask, please, that you you add your comments to my text, copied above starting with Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin ... [is] ... *so* prominent ... and create an addition to this section. That addition would say something to the effect of "I amend User:Deicas refutation of the claim of WP:UNDUE, above, with ..." <User:Bdell555's reasons> + User:Deicas's reasons.

I ask that your comments above, as they are not *completely* on topic, be struck-out.

I suggest that you paste the portion your comment, just above, that bears on the findings/results from the DRN into a new section. I suggest that you name the new section "What-the-heck was the finding from the DRN process and why was it so unclear?" Deicas (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV in a BLP is non-negotiable. Weight is more open to discussion. Frankly, I'm a bit on the fence on whether the issue should be mentioned in the article, it's been discussed quite a bit and Krugman is frequently mentioned (although that's died down now that the Treasury has rejected it as a potential solution). But whatever is added, it must be inserted into an appropriate section and stated completely neutrally. I propose as a compromise to both sides that we include the following sentence in the U.S. economic policies section: --LK (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

During the 2013 debt ceiling debate, Krugman endorsed the potential issuance of a large denomination platinum coin by the US Treasury as a means to sidestep the potential crisis.

Good suggestion. Is this minor change acceptable?

During the 2013 debt ceiling debate, Krugman endorsed the potential issuance of a large denomination platinum coin by the US Treasury, to be purchased by the Fed, as a means to sidestep statutory debt ceiling and avoid a potential funding crisis.

Deicas (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you should add "what Krugman believed to be a Republican manufactured" to "crisis". The article is, in fact, missing a section on Krugman's views concerning monetary policy, where this could be offered as an example of Krugman's support for unorthodox monetary policy (quantitative easing is itself unconventional policy). Absent that, this could go under "Controversies" > "Economics and policy recommendations" after "Summers has stated Krugman has a tendency to favor more extreme policy recommendations because '[Krugman is] involved in commenting on rather than making policy.'" The important thing is have a wikilink somewhere in this article to Trillion Dollar Coin because then readers can follow that link and say, "oh, ok, so I see that that's similar to quantitative easing etc" and otherwise get a fuller picture. At present, this article is too isolated from other monetary policy concepts in particular. We should be building Wikipedia from a "web of knowledge" perspective.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Some here are demonstrating a baffling view of what undue actually means on Wikipedia, to the point that it's disruptive. It has nothng to do with Krugman's body of work, but rather the reporting on that work. There is ample evidence that the TDC has many RS commenting on Krugman's views in connection with the TDC. Thus this is not undue. Furthermore, if this is "undue", then please explain what is the minority/majority views in question? The suggested text has just as much RS backing as the 94 East Asian Krugman article, which has its own section in this very article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I, for one, am baffled as to why a minor, at best, example of wp:recentism -- one that has shown little to no impact on Krugman's achievements, fame, academic focus, awards, reputation, or body of work generally is being flogged as if it had the slightest importance in a short general biography. The sort of tortured logic that claims that sort of thing is important is, indeed, disruptive. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only comment, that addressed an issue probative for quote's removal is FurrySings's claim "... obvious that the edit[11] is undue weight", he offered no evidence to support the claim, I, above, refuted the claim and, I infer that my refutation was effective because he stopped making the claim. If anyone disagrees with my assessment that "my refutation was effective", then I encourage them to: claim UNDUE and describe the evidence and reasoning to support the claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific ANI section is titled: No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote" Deicas (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

...which could easily be retitled, "I'm not getting my way! Make them stop!"

You've had clear policy and practice explained to you over and over again. To summarize: no one has to prove a damned thing to you, you have to make the case. Burden for inclusion? On you.

Not the answer you wanted and were trolling for, but it's the answer you're going to get. Want it in? Make an actual case. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Calton: your comment,just above: ...which could easily be retitled, "I'm not getting my way! Make them stop!" and it's WP:GOODFAITH-violating nature is duly noted.Deicas (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet another policy which you don't understand has been noted. I've explained -- like many others -- that you're dead wrong, and good faith -- or bad faith or no faith or Faith Hill, for that matter -- is irrelevant. -Calton | Talk 08:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And another thing: "duly noted"? Are you going to report me to the principal? The UN? George Mason University?" --Calton | Talk 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your continued WP:GOODFAITH-violating statements are noted. Deicas (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors must assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So that's a third policy you don't understand. Going for the Hat trick, hmm? I hope you're keeping good notes for whatever purpose you're doing so, but maybe you should start by actually understanding what you're claiming to note. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas, you have no authority to set yourself up as judge of consensus on this. The bald fact is that we went over this at length above, and you made bad arguments and misrepresented what I said at ridiculous length. On that basis alone your remarks disqualify your from donning the mantle of authority in which you presumptuously wrap yourself. It's time you faced up to the facts: Becker's fairly off-hand comment isn't the basis for making any sort of statement in the story other than that Becker admitted that Krugman was someone whose opinions in the field were respected if not always agreed with. If that's not what you heard in the interview, then you need to find something else to do. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Below I establish that Gary Becker quote is suitable for inclusion in Paul Krugman:

"The Gary Becker quote/citation"
is found in a podcast is from Hoover_Institution
which satisfies WP:THIRDPARTY
AND "it" is a single citation and single sentence within a 206 citation, 8100 word article
AND THEREFOR "it" can not materially change the article's current WP:POV
AND THEREFOR "it" meets WP:VERIFY
AND THEREFOR "it" is suitable for inclusion Paul Krugman

I am not suggesting that others need to go the painful lengths that I did, above, with citation inclusion and fancy formatting. I resorted to the obsessive formatting so my reasoning would be unmistakeably clear and easy to read. Deicas (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to attack, amend, extend or counter my reasoning then I encourage them to do so below. Deicas (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been countered—many times, many places, and by multiple editors. When everyone disagrees with you, it is time for some introspection.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: I have persistently asked disputants, notably including *you*, to make to make or cite their arguments, to wit: "I assert, yet again, that the Becker quote and associated citation meets WP:PROVEIT, within WP:VERIFY, the criteria for inclusion in an article. Ok!? If you want to dispute that assertion go ahead and do so. Be sure to cite the applicable Wikipedia guide line(s) and applicable fact(s)."[66] and "I found *no* other claims above that are probative for the removal of the Becker quote, cite an applicable Wikipedia guild line, and offer evidence to support the claim. If User:Zad68, or anyone else, finds something to the contrary, in the reference sections, then cite the item, quote it here below, and I will issue a whimpering mea culpa"

If you're got an exclusion argument to make then assert it. If you, or someone else, previously expressed an argument for excluding "it" don't say, per User:Sphilbrick, "Your reasoning has been countered—many times, many places". Instead, take quotation(s) of that "reasoning", and citation thereto, hold in in your metaphoric hand, as if it was a metaphoric trout, and smack me in the head with it. Deicas (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been assertions, that I claim to be incomplete and unsubstantiated, rattling around that if expressed convincingly would look like:

BECAUSE ...fact...

(e.g. "Becker is a freshwater economist who doesn't agree with Krugman"

or "the fact that Becker is a Nobel Prize-winning economist don't matter beans")

AND BECAUSE ...text quoted... from WP:UNDUE

THEREFORE "it" is WP:UNDUE

BECAUSE "it" is WP:UNDUE

THEREFORE "it" shall be excluded from Paul Krugman

BECAUSE "it" has been established to be WP:UNDUE

THEREFOR additional arguments for including "it" in Paul Krugman shall not be raised

UNTIL the claim that "it" is WP:UNDUE is successfully REBUTTED

If you believe the WP:UNDUE claim has merit then provide your reasoning.

The may be another argument for excluding "it" that would look something like:

BECAUSE ...guild-line...

AND BECAUSE ...fact...

THEREFOR "it" fails to meet WP:VERIFY

AND THEREFORE "it" shall be excluded from Paul Krugman

If someone wants to make that argument then I encourage them to do so, filling in the missing pieces (e.g. facts and guild-lines). Deicas (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas, I've already spelled it out for you. Repeating the same arguments over and over isn't going to make them more convincing. The only substance in Becker's remarks, as they relate to Krugman, is his statement somewhat after the quoted passage in which he says that common sense examination of the stimulus package's results will lead to a evaluation in Becker's favor rather than Krugman's. But that's because the schools of economics of which they are adherents have different opinions as to the merits of a stimulus. If you're interested in economics, you should already know all this. If you don't apparently I can't tell you and get you to listen. We've been over this a number of times, and you repeat the same irrelevant argument about how since it's published, we have to include it. Nearly everyone commenting here, including every outsider opinion, has told you this. It's time to admit that there is a strong consensus against you, and move on. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe: you assert, just above, "I've already spelled it out for you". As I've said before before[67], take the stuff that you've spelled out to me, quote it, cite it, hold in in your metaphoric hand, as if it was a metaphoric trout, and smack me in the head with it. And if you if you don't I'm going start make some rather pointed comments about your violations of WP:TEDIOUS, notably:"One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". Deicas (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolving POV dispute issue associated with Paul Krugman

This horse? It's dead. Anyone who wants to bring this up should start fresh
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not telling anybody, who pays attention to Talk:Paul Krugman, anything new when I say that there is a large POV dispute bubbling here. How are we going to resolve it? Certainly a {POV} tag needs to be added to the article but that's just a small start. How do we proceed? Deicas (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC) After reviewing a bit more of the article and talkpage histories, particularly Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive 3 # Gary Becker on Paul Krugman, I think you're being disingenuous when you now characterize this dispute as "bubbling," given that you were pushing for Becker two years ago.. El duderino (abides) 05:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Regarding your disagreement with my use of the word "bubbling": as the Paul Krugman article has been rolled back to the 25 Dec. version and; is currently locked and; been the subject of thousands of words of dispute at Talk:Paul Krugman and BLPN and; been the subject of a DNR and; and is currently the subject of an AN/I -- I fail to see how a putatively rational person would dispute "bubbling". Your complaint about my use of the word "bubbling" is unsupported by the facts and totally without merit and as such I ask that you strike it out. Indeed I did attempt to add the Becker quote two years ago, was met with a WP:CRUSH response, dropped the topic, and went away. But I'm back and I've figured how to respond to WP:CRUSH. Just watch. You assertion of "disingenuous" above is unsupported by the facts and is a violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I ask that you strike it out. Deicas (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) In case anyone wonders, I continue to assert that a large POV dispute is bubbling at and around the article Paul Krugman. Deicas (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved admin input As an administrator not involved in the dispute above... On review, here, the DRV, the ANI discussions, I have formed the following conclusion on the quote: The "short quote", Becker saying "He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now.", is out of context and unbalanced. The "long quote", as Mangoe entered above: Becker: Not easy, because Paul Krugman did some important work in economics, so his Nobel Prize certainly had merit. He did important work on international trade, not on stimulus packages and the like. Host: He's an economist of serious standing. Becker: He was a serious economist. Host: He was. Becker: He was. He's not doing serious work any more, but he was a good and serious economist. ...is not out of context. In my opinion, inclusion of the short quote is a policy violation and poor research. Comparing the short and long quote shows that there is a very different implication and nuance with the lead-in. It does not accurately represent the longer quote context, violates NPOV, and is inaccurate. Cherry-picking short segments out of source material to synthesize a new opinion, in the pursuit of advocating a particular point of view, is at best poor form and at worst / persistently can be actionable violation of Wikipedia policies. I do not currently have a pro or con opinion on inclusion of the long quote (or that plus further context) from Becker being a good idea, but I believe it provides sufficient context and is acceptable to use in a policy sense. I would encourage the parties here to focus a short discussion on whether you feel that including the long quote is a good idea or not. I would like to firmly discourage further attempts to use the short quote. This is specific only to the content. In terms of editor behavior, I see a lot of unproductive and rude behavior on both sides, and as has been said elsewhere by many others, you all should please stop that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 1) accept Georgewilliamherbert's suggestion above. 2) I encourage someone who doesn't like my short quote to propose an alternative. I'd write an alternative chunk of text, but I think it would be better coming from someone other than me. 3) I assert that neither #1 nor #2 nor User:Georgewilliamherbert comment above have *any* bearing on the oft asserted claim that the Becker quote *citation* should be excluded from the article. Deicas (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC) If you will break down and read the rest of what I wrote above: this exchange occurred in the context of the interviewer naming Krugman as a notable economist who disagrees with Becker's views. There's nothing more to be gotten out of the whole exchange than an acknowledgement of Krugman's eminence and the fact of their disagreement. Period. As I've said, over and over, the proper approach to this is to admit that these people are rivals and to present remarks in the context of that rivalry. Therefore if anything about the interview is usable (which I think is questionable) it is only so in the context of Chicago school economists not liking stimulus packages, and Krugman as a Keynesian thinking that they are wise policy. Mangoe (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) User:Mangoe does my parsing of your text, just above, reflect your intended meaning? 1a) In the text, just above, a portion bears on excluding the Becker quote citation from the article: "Therefore if anything about the interview is usable (which I think is questionable)". 1b) That argument would look something like: BECAUSE(reason?) THEREFOR(the Becker quote citation should be excluded from the article). 1c) Doesn't this argument for exclusion belong in the "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote" section above? 2a)The rest of the text address what portion of the interview to quote and what the explanatory text should say. 2b) That argument would look something like: BECAUSE(Krugman is a saltwater economist and Becker is a freshwater economist and, thus, members of rival schools) THEREFOR (the quote+explanatory text needs to say ...) 2c) Does someone want to have a stab at writing the quote+explanatory text? 3) It isn't clear from my reading of User:Mangoe's text if he's also making an assertion on the article section in which the article section is appropriate. But I believe that it's been claimed that the "Controversies" section is not a appropriate location. Does someone want to expand on this? Deicas (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, I was recently reminded of what I wrote to you 2 years ago:[68] Any statements included should be i) relevant to the section in which the statements are inserted, ii) proportionate to their notability, and iii) balanced with other relevant views. The current insertion fails on all three counts. As an off-the-cuff statement, that has not been commented on by reliable sources, Becker's statement is not notable enough to include. Even if it were notable, the relevant place to include it would be in the section about Krugman's academic work. Lastly, if included, it should be balanced with other views about Krugman's academic work, in rough proportion to what is said about Krugman's academic work in all reliable sources. Per WP:DEADHORSE, I suggest backing away from pushing the Becker quote into the article. You've been pushing it for more than 2 years, and it's been objected to by multiple people. Let it go. LK (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 1) User:Lawrencekhoo: Thank you for responding with actual reasons and reasoning for excluding the Becker's quote/citation from Paul Krugman. I've been asking for same for a while, heretofore with no success. 2a) As, absent a consensus for quote/citation inclusion, discussion of other issues: ie. what part of the quote to use; what explanatory text to insert and; in what article section to put the quote -- are moot and a waste of time. Therefor I strongly contend that we need to discuss quote/citation inclusion/exclusion to consensus, *only*, totally restricting any mention of the other issues. 2b) I contend, to keep this large discussion orderly, we need to have inclusion/exclusion discussion in one, and only, location. I contend that location is section "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote". Would you please move the reasons and reasoning, from above, that bear on inclusion/exclusion, to that section? Perhaps, to be clearer we should change the section name to "Consensus on inclusion/exclusion of the Gary Becker quote/citation?" Deicas (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 1) User:Lawrencekhoo: Per your "... it's been objected to by multiple people": I am not aware that this is a Wikipedia guild-line or policy for excluding a citation from an article. If, indeed, this is your claim then I encourage you to make it, above in the inclusion/exclusion discussion. 2) Your "You've been pushing it for more than 2 years" is not sustained by the facts & common English usage. To wit: 2a) FACT: I attempted to add the citation/quote to the article two years ago, gave up, and went away. On 6 January I came back and again attempted to add the edit. 2b) ENGLISH USAGE: if your reasoning is correct, then a week of 50 degree weather at the North Pole, followed by a two year period of the usual cold, followed by a two weeks of 50 degree weather could be correctly described as "it's been 50 degrees at the North Pole for more than 2 years". Clearly that interpretation is absurd. 2c) As your assertion, above, of "pushing ... for 2 years" is clearly false and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH I ask you to strike it out (ie. strike-out). 3) : With regard to your reference to WP:DEADHORSE: time will tell whether the horse is dead or only napping. Deicas (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that the short quote sends a different message than the longer quote, so there should be no consideration given to the use of the short quote. As regarding the inclusion of the longer quote, it doesn't say anything remarkable. It is an observation that he used to do serious work in economics, but has moved on to other things. I think one either accepts this, and needs to explain why such an unremarkable observation, which is likely to apply to tens of thousands of subjects of bios, deserves mentioning, or one disagrees with it, in which case one has to find someone notable who supports a contrary view, then we have to work out whether and how to include the contrasting views. In summary, I see these options: The opinion expressed by Becker is unremarkable, and doesn't deserve inclusion The opinion expressed by Becker is unremarkable, yet deserves mention (for reasons to be supplied) The opinion expressed by Becker is not a consensus, in which case someone needs to find alternatives, and work out a proposed presentation. In my view, #1 is the most accurate view.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Here is something else - generally after a certain age, and after they've received a certain amount of status in the profession (like getting a Nobel prize!) economists, and other academics as well, often switch from doing frontier research to other scholarly activities. These can be moving into management positions at their institutions, consulting for think tanks, consulting for country's governments, etc. Basically selling their brand name (nothing wrong with that), sort of like Michael Jordan sponsoring products long after he stopped playing basketball. This really has to do with age much than anything else. The way I read the quote is essentially along those lines. Paul's moved on to other things than cutting edge research. Of course all that cutting edge research he did once still survives. But by the same token one could say that Gary is also not "doing serious work" in terms of research (which isn't surprising given his age). Essentially saying "he was a serious economist. He's not doing serious work any more" can be said of almost ANY famous economist of sufficient vintage (there are a couple guys who keep on plodding with high caliber research till the very end but I think they're the exception). That is pretty much the context of the Becker quote. And regardless whether you put the short or the long version in, it's still going to be out of that context, and will misrepresent both Krugman and possibly Becker. And this has seriously been going on for two years? And it has been the same editor that won't let this go all this time? Really? What's wrong here? Volunteer Marek 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Volunteer Marek: I call your attention to my "... a violation of WP:GOODFAITH I ask you to strike it out" comment above. I ask that you read it carefully and withdraw or amend your comment, just above, appropriately. Deicas (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Read WP:AGF again, carefully, particularly the part that says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" - 2 years should be enough, no? Volunteer Marek 00:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Volunteer Marek: Would you be so kind as to more completely cite and explain the evidence on which you are basing your assertion that I am acting in bad faith? You can do that here, or on my talk page, but in any case please do it. Deicas (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I think two years worth of obstinacy and NOTHEARINGIT qualifies as evidence. As to your wiki-lawyering faux-formal tone (and asking "evidence" for every obvious or mundane thing, as well as things which simply aren't evidentiary) please see WP:CPUSH. Volunteer Marek 18:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I don´t think the long quote should be included in the article. What´s being said is important not enough to deserve so much place in the article and including it will create a false impression of how important it is. And in general dialogues are seldom ideal for article inclusion, quotes should normally be more concentrated in form. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Do you have a suggestion for specific quote text and explanatory text that you would find suitable for inclusion? Deicas (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Krugman is both an economist and a public intellectual as a newspaper columnist. People have all sorts of different opinions about the latter, the United States being a politically polarized country, now as always. We should not coatrack snarky comments. Nor is a "criticism" section entirely out of line. The Becker comment, it seems to me, MIGHT be worthy of a short, one line summary in an appropriately sized and placed criticism section. Or not. Having a full section about "The Coin" complete with snarky quotation is inappropriate however. POV warriors need to step back. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Per User:Carrite's comment, just above: 1) A "full section about 'The Coin'"? To my knowledge no one has suggested that. I had in mind one sentence. Others would seem to suggest one sentence mentioning Krugman's endorsement and a second explaining the reason behind the endorsement -- that's probably a better treatment. 2) I've been hoping that we could reach consensus on the decision that we *shall*/*shall not* mention "The Coin" in Paul Krugman before addressing the specific of the inserted article text and citations. 3) I concur with your "[n]or is a 'criticism' section entirely out of line" and suspect that we will see much discussion of that, and other items, in the near future. 3b) A 'criticism' section would also provide an appropriate place to put the Becker quote. 3c) Is the procedural step, to addressing the addition of a 'criticism' section be to add a "Discussion of adding a 'Criticism' section" to Talk:Paul Krugman? Deicas (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Generally Criticism sections are a terrible idea, unless a topic is notable nearly exclusively for criticism of it, which is not the case here. A really good essay on this is WP:CRITICISM. Zad68 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) This is still going on?? FFS... Deicas, there is no prospect of crowbarring that quote into the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Neo v New Keynesian moniker

Sources identifying Krugman as New Keynesian: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]

Krugman self-identifying as New Keynesian:

• "I’m just a Keynesian, willing to follow the logic of my analysis. A perfectly standard New Keynesian model, ..."[75]
• "NK [New Keynesian] models almost always assume imperfect competition, so that we can talk about price-setting agents. This is all in Eggertsson and Krugman, by the way."[76]
• "We envision an economy very much along the lines of standard New Keynesian models"[77]

Reliable sources identifying Krugman as neo-Keynesian: NONE

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

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

I also agree. His economics is far more than 30 years out of date. Perhaps pre-neo-Keynesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.62.178 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Can we then agree that he is a neo-Krugman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.62.178 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

He identifies himself as a Keynesian, not a new Keynesian. That should probably be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does he say "I am not a New Keynesian"? We have lots and lots of secondary references that say he is, so, since the New Keynesians could probably be considered a subspecies of Keynesians as a whole, I would expect a statement of disassociation before I would say "not". Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the definition (at least, in our article) of new Keynesian, I can agree with that. I can't find where he says "I am not a new Keynesian", although I'm not totally convinced that "new Keynesian" is the term actually used by meta-economists. (Yes, that is the correct term for discussing schools of economics, even if not used by reliable sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In Chapter Six of End This Depression Now, Krugman writes:

By the way, in case you’re wondering, I see myself as a sorta-kinda New Keynesian; I’ve even published papers that are very much in the New Keynesian style. I don’t really buy the assumptions about rationality and markets that are embedded in many modern theoretical models, my own included, and I often turn to Old Keynesian ideas, but I see the usefulness of such models as a way to think through some issues carefully—an attitude that is actually widely shared on the saltwater side of the great divide.

That's pretty close to a declaration that he's a Keynesian, largely of the New Keynesian variety. LK (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)