Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive 5

"undue weight for off hand remark" dismissal of Gary Becker statement?

User FurrySings reverted my recent addition, see below, giving as a reason "undue weight for off hand remark". I fail to understand how a statement, from a recorded, on-the-record interview of a Nobel Prize-wining economist on the topic of "The Economy" could be considered an "off hand remark".

I find this "off hand remark" claim unpersuasive. Would someone please add some clarity to to this issue?

Reverted edit in question: "Another Nobel laureate economist, Gary Becker, describes Krugman as no longer performing economic research saying, of Krugman, "He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now."

Deicas (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly that's one of the crappiest things you could add to a Wikipedia article. Just some other guy notable, who says this guy's work sucks? Nothing that tells you what Becker doesn't like about Krugman's work? If Becker has specific criticism, then go ahead and consider adding that. But this is silly. We can't have every "I don't like so and so" that has ever been uttered by a notable person, because then we'd die before we'd be able to finish one article on Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I think Krugman is awesome. Trinitresque (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Trinitresque -- I am confused as you how you are able to read Becker's "He's [Kurgman] not doing serious work now" as meaning "this guy's [Krugman] work sucks". Would you please clarify?

Deicas (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Trinitresque is paraphrasing. That's essentially what Becker is saying, given that in the world of academia, serious work is the coin of the realm. Becker is essentially saying 'that guy sucks'. Suppose we have a quote from John Boehner in a reliable source saying, "Obama, not a good president - he makes bad decisions", I don't think you'll get that in the Obama article, and rightly so. Pretty much the same thing here. LK (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not what Becker is saying. He is saying, and it is quite clear, that Krugman is no longer an acedemic. Krugman is now a polemetic. Krugman's policy positions are now based on his partisan political positions, hell even his personal blog is a reflection of Krugman's evolution. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are any of the commenters going to address and/or defend the "undue weight for off hand remark" as the reason for reverting the edit under discussion? Deicas (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep well-sourced and relevant. Krugman's column is self described as "politics" Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per "[k]eep sell-sourced": the Becker quote in question is demonstrably a statement made by Becker and Becker is a Nobel Prize-winner in Economic Science. If you are asserting that the quote is less-than-well sourced, would you please specify deficiencies supporting the claim? Deicas (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per 'Krugman's column is self described as "politics"'. What is the saliency of that observation? -- the Wikipedia article in question is "Paul Krugman" not "Paul Krugman's Column". Deicas (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i asserted the quote is well sourced, meaning good, the saliency(or relevance) of my comment is Krugman writes about politics, which is less serious work than economics, therefore i agree with Becker and feel it relevant to this article, hence my keep comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Opps! I apologize for my obtuseness in misunderstanding Keep. Deicas (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

no problem. i suspect even Paul would agree his work today is much less serious, often bordering on humor. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per BRD, I am removing Becker until you can convince the people who have objected that it should be there. FurrySings (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've already removed it once[1], that wouldn't be BRD. That would be edit-warring. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you truly believe so, post it at ANI, rather than making an uncivil accusation here. Frankly, I think edit warring and hounding better describes your actions than mine. FurrySings (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wrote everything wrong with Klugman's neo-Keynesian theory because then we'd die before we'd be able to finish one this one article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.62.178 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman is a public figure who is hated by some elements of the right wing. We see this reflected here, where for some years now, there have been edit wars to include as much negative material into this article as possible no matter how trivial. In this recent dispute, we have from a 31 minute podcast with Gary Becker (from the anti Keynesian Chicago school), 13 words about Krugman saying that he is not a serious economist. Some here wish to include a quote of those 13 words in full, together with commentary describing the quote. In this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that the edit[2] is undue weight. To settle this matter, I will pose the same question at WP:BLPN. FurrySings (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the section it is in, I think it fits well. Perhaps if Krugman was not so confrontational with everyone that does not agree with him, he would not have so many people calling his ideas political rather than economic. Krugman has only himself to blame for his transformation from economist to polematic. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not fit well as is POV with little reason so be there other than to push ones POV. --GlIllIIIIIG (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The FurrySings comment above, seems to be the only attempt, to date, to justify the "undue weight for off hand remark" revision reason. Addressing the points made therein ...

1) "Krugman ... hated by ... trivial" is an ad hominum argument and, thus, not dispositive.

2) "In this recent dispute, ... 31 minute podcast ... Gary Becker ... anti Keynesian Chicago ..." seems to be making the unstated assertion that Becker is not qualified to speak authoritatively on this topic. If this is the claim then I suggest that this be cited as a future reversion reason.

3) "saying that he [Krugman] is not a serious economist" -- this claim is a clear misreading of Becker's "[h]e's not doing serious work now".

4) "this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that the edit[3] is undue weight" is the only portion portion of FurrySing's comment to directly address the "undue" claim. Paul Krugman is an 8100 word article with 206 footnote. The claim that the addition, now under discussion, of thirty words and one footnote constitutes undue weight is not creditable.

Deicas (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I write this comment the edit under discussion has been re-reverted by User:GlIllIIIIIG citing "POV-cruft, not germain".

1) General Wikipedia question: to what degree does the reverting party have the burden of proof to justify the reversion and to what degree do the parties (e.g. me) desiring to un-revert the edit need to justify their actions?

2) General Wikipedia question: is it proper to re-revert a significantly discussed edit citing "POV-cruft, not germain" with no additional justification?

3) What possible justification exists to dismiss as "cruft" a serious statement, by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, about the work of an economist?

4) What possible justification exists to dismiss as "not germain" an assessment of Paul Krugman's current work in the biographic article on Paul Kurgman?

5) What possible justification exist to claim a Wikipedia:NPOV violation due to adding thirty words and one footnote an article of 8100 words article 206 footnote?

Deicas (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How long is it appropriate to wait for User:GlIllIIIIIG to justify his "POV-cruft, not germain" reversion prior to un-reverting my edit? User:Belchfire asserts, in an un-revert comment, that User:GlIllIIIIIG is a "sockpuppet". Should this claim be examined?

Deicas (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's being examined. Don't hold your breath while you wait for that user to come to Talk. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Absent any defense/explaination by User:GlIllIIIIIG, of his deletion of this edit, I have re-added it. I'm hoping that, should anyone remove it yet again, that they would enter a cogent explaination herein, that address the inclusion justifications above. Deicas (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:GlIllIIIIIG has been determined to be a sockpuppet and banded by administative action. Deicas (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the active portion of this discussion has now moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman Deicas (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Zad68, We shouldn't be having our discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman: "No. Read the big blue box titled 'Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard' at the top of this page to understand what kinds of issues this board is for." That's fine by me, as none of the issues currently under discussion are of a "defamatory or libelous" nature we shouldn't be having the discussion at BLPN. FurrySings shouldn't have started a Paul Krugman discussion there. I wish an administrator would editprotect Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman to assure that our discussion stays off that page. Deicas (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

References

What Becker actually said

This interview is being conspicuously misrepresented. The key portion is prefaced by the host contrasting Krugman's views about the stimulus at about 28:16. Krugman's name then comes up again at the 30:00 mark as the host says why he specifically named him, as someone with a Nobel Prize. Becker then says:

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.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like criticism. I'm sure that the section that followed featured Becker explaining how Krugman's Keynesianism was wrong, but all that Becker is saying here is that Krugman had gotten out of research. In context, it's not a criticism, but merely an observation, perhaps, that Treasury secretaries and the like don't have time for research. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not doing serious work any more, but he was a good and serious economist. "I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like criticism.", define criticism? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this exchange, and the part immediately preceding it, is the admission that Krugman is someone who has to be taken seriously, not to dismiss him as someone who doesn't have to be taken seriously. If you keep listening, you will hear no criticism of Krugman at all, in fact. The larger context of this is the host asking, in essence, "how does an ordinary person know who to listen to?" And Becker's reply, after acknowledging the eminence of people supporting the stimulus in the quoted passage, is to call upon us laypeople to use our common sense and judge policies by their outcomes. It's clear that he and Krugman disagree, but he acknowledges that there is a lot of professional disagreement on these issues, and he does not single Krugman out for any specific criticism at all. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

was means in the past, but no longer, which supports the previous statement, not...serious. maybe there is more text you could present to support your position? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the quotation as used in our article is being used to say that Becker is dismissing Krugman as a has-been by lumping him in with Barro and Prescott. But that's not at all what Becker actually said. Becker is acknowledging Krugman as someone worthy of some respect, who is nonetheless wrong. Barro and Prescott themselves present problems here, because, not to put too fine a point on it, they are partisans of new classical economics. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the various economic schools knows that the classical schools and the Keynesians have been in stalwart opposition for some seventy-five years, and that their mutual denunciations sound all too like the titles of Oolon Colluphid's various works. It's reasonable to say that Krugman is someone the classical econ people like to take potshots at, but we need to make clear that these are the attacks of rivals and not of neutral parties. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I dispute User:Mangoe assertion, above, that "This interview is being conspicuously misrepresented".

1) The interview isn't the item at issue here. The interview is only the *source* of Becker's statement.

2) Becker's "He's not doing serious work any more" is clear.

3) The edit that includes the Becker quotes says "... Gary Becker, describes Krugman as as no longer performing economic research ...". I believe that statement is coldly accurate. What phrasing would be more accurate? Deicas (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Deicas, the passage is in a sections on controversies. The only real controversy in the interview is that Becker is from the Chicago school and Krugman is a Keynesian and thus someone opposed to the Chicago school (and vice versa). But the presentation of the quote is to imply that Becker thinks there is something wrong with the fact that Krugman's research days are in the past. But if you listen to the statement in context, there is no such criticism implied: Becker and the host both hold up Krugman as an opponent who has to be taken seriously. There is no brief clip from the interview that I've found which provides a neat, quotable "Becker criticizes Krugman" statement. I think the paragraph could be reworded to the more truthful statement that Krugman is commonly attacked by members of rival schools, giving Barro and Prescott as examples and being up-front about their affiliations, but the Becker interview simply doesn't fit into that story. It's an interview about stimulus packages, not about Krugman. Becker's attitude in the interview towards Krugman, after the host brings him up, is of a respected but wrong-headed colleague, not the "controversial" figure that the other two are trying to paint him as. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are no-longer claiming "[t]his interview is being conspicuously misrepresented" and are now claiming that the edit does not belong in the "Controversies" section? True? Where do you propose that the Becker quote be more properly located? Deicas (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, and if you understand otherwise, then you need to stop and think about what this says about your comprehension of the material. I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you're saying: the level of misrepresentation goes beyond just this one quotation, and includes the notion that Becker intended any personal criticism of Krugman at all. Assuming we even have an article on the stimulus packages, this interview could be used there, but it's useless here except as acknowledgement of Becker's professional respect, which is not what you apparently want. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please 'quote' the text that causes you to make the "misrepresentation" claim.

I, again, ask you if you're claiming that the edit under discussion doesn't belong in the "Controversies" section? Well? Are you implying that the quote in question would more appropriately below in the "Commentator" as it describes Krugman's current activities?

How, from the edit in question, do you 'possibly' construe any intent to convey the "notion that Becker intended any personal criticism"? Quote the offending words and justify your reasoning.

If you believe that the Becker quote has *no* place in article then say so and state your reason(s), e.g. "not notable".

Your "... which is not what you apparently want" is ad hominum and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I ask that you refrain from such statements. Deicas (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas, I've already said why the interview is not appropriate, and you came back with an WP:IDHT response. Becker was interviewed (as best I can tell) about the stimulus packages. Now, I didn't listen to all of an interview which runs for over half an hour, and I only made a transcript of the short passage quoted above because I simply do not have the several hours available to produce a complete transcript. But from what I heard of it, Krugman's name wasn't dropped until near the end, when the host said, in effect, "how does a layperson deal with all these eminent economists (such as Klugman with his Nobel Prize) who disagree with what you just said?" Becker says, "well, yes, Klugman is an eminent economist, though he's not doing new research now, and there's these other guys too; but really all you have to do is use your common sense and look at the outcome of the packages." Obviously he disagrees with Klugman, but the reading this as a personal controversy is an interpretation which the audio does not support. I'm not going over this time and again because you don't see this. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

user:Mangoe -- You assert "Becker was interviewed (as best I can tell) about the stimulus packages". That is demonstrably *false". Please look at the interview citation: the title is "Uncommon Knowledge; The Economy with Gary Becker". Therein Becker was spoke on a number of economic topics. Deicas (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mangoe -- As you continue to assert "personal controversy"-- please address my prior "How, from the edit in question, do you 'possibly' construe any intent to convey the "notion that Becker intended any personal criticism"? Quote the offending words and justify your reasoning." The Becker quote is Becker's assessment of Krugman's current activities as an economist 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, there's no point in me wasting any more time on this. I have to doubt whether you've even listened to the passage in question, but there's nothing in it suggesting that Becker meant anything critical or controversial about the fact that Krugman isn't doing research these days. If you don't see that, I can't help you. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I, yet again, ask ask User:Mangoe if "... you're claiming that the edit under discussion doesn't belong in the 'Controversies' section? Well? Are you implying that the quote in question would more appropriately below in the 'Commentator' as it describes Krugman's current activities?" Please answer the question.

I, again, ask User:Mangoe "if you believe that the Becker quote has *no* place in article then say so and state your reason(s), e.g. "not notable". Deicas (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough already. I said I didn't listen to the entire podcast, and I don't deny that they certainly may have talked on any number of other topics. But you aren't appealing to anything that was actually said in those other sections, so who cares? I and everyone else have better things to do with my life than to put up with your relentless nitpicking at this. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct in interpreting your "so who cares" to mean: 1) Mangoe does not object to the inclusion of the Becker quote in Paul Krugman and; 2) Mangoe does not have a opinion on where in Paul Krugman the Becker quote should appear? True? Deicas (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It means that you are ignoring what I am saying. Mangoe (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas

Topic ban enacted, so nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I call to the attention of talk:Paul Krugman participants and lurkers the recently entered RfC PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas. Deicas (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) It's certainly long overdue. And before you start misquoting policy -- AGAIN -- there's plenty of evidence for such a ban, given your persistent unwillingness to understand policy, mischaracterization of arguments, filibustering, and forum-shopping. If it bothers you, go there and (non-tediously) explain to the readers of ANI when you'll stop, and stop trying to game WP:CANVASSING rules to recruit supporters. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, and it's NOT an RFC, it's a direct request. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC) My Statement, above is a neutral statement of fact that could/should be of be of interest to everyone who frequents Talk:Paul Krugman. Your tirade, above, is a violation of WP:GOODFAITH and I ask you to strike it out. Deicas (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC) You know, I already warned you about misquoting policy, but as it seems to have been too subtle, let's try again: editors must assume good faith -- that is, that another editor is not fucking around -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary. As there is plenty of evidence -- your constant forum-shopping has gotten you exactly the same answer, every time -- I will strike nothing and will instead re-emphasize it. Also, I guess we can all add your basic vocabulary problems regarding the meaning of jargon such as "RFC" and of general vocabulary such as "tirade" and "bizarre" to the list of your sins: the word "tirade"? I do not think that word means what you think it means. But then, given your difficulties with meaning of words like "logic" and "rationality" I'm not terribly surprised. --Calton | Talk 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) The correct link is WP:ANI -- PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas, as the the link given above by Decias is merely a diff. El duderino (abides) 07:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deicas should it be needed. I would need one more certifier. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Since he's been topic-banned by community consensus, it'll probably be deleted as redundant. I'd suggest saving a copy on your hard drive, though, just in case. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloat

This article is over 100K while the entry in Britannica's online encyclopedia is just 2K. The article also has a bad case of citation overkill, including multiple citations for the same point in the lead which, as a summary of the main article, should not have any citations. It therefore seems that the article needs a good hard prune. Such activity would clear away much clutter, not just the trillion dollar coin and other hobby horses. Perhaps the approach of zero-based budgeting, where all material would have to justify its inclusion, might help. Warden (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

One can hardly argue against a careful pruning, but I don't see it quite as bloated as you. Frankly, I think there's some material missing. Krugman's strength is in international trade theory, with an emphasis on Japan, and while there is discussion of Japan in the 90's, there is nothing more recent, despite the fact that Krugman is talking about it. I fear his serious contributions get lost. As for citation bloat, it may be hard to argue that all 206 are needed, but I urge caution against too much pruning. Links go dead, so what may look like redundancy is less so over time. Second, my main mantra when talking to someone about why they shouldn't dismiss Wikipedia is to look at the refs. The article itself may not be reliable, but the refs are a valuable resource for interested readers. I think there is a positive benefit to seeing more than one reference supporting the same point, the contrast, or lack of contrast in the reporting may be illuminating.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just consider the first reference which supports the supposed pronunciation. This is to "...the part-time project of Stuart Yoder who lives and works in the Austin, Texas area, and enjoys orthoepy as a hobby." Neither the website nor its author seem to be notable. It's all junk as the pronunciation is not especially difficult and any nuances are a matter of accent and so debatable. So, we can start by getting rid of this. One down, 205 to go ... Warden (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a six hour drive today and spent part of it thinking about my response, and decided I may have been a bit too strong. I do think there is value in redundant references, but I do not doubt that a decent trimming could make this a better article. I urge caution about being too ruthless, if only because of the drama that will ensue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about references in the lead, especially for the last sentence which has five -- three of which are not used for anything in the body text. The summary statement itself, "His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative" is not contentious; it's actually rather bland. Call me cynical but it seems as if the placement of those references there is meant to be a shortcut outside to criticism and supposed controversy. Why should they be highlighted, as it were, like that in the lead? El duderino ^(abides) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Moving on to the next fact after the pronunciation, I found that there was no citation for the subject's date of birth. As this is a BLP and this is sensitive personal information, I would have removed this immediately if I had not got the Britannica entry at my fingertips. I have used that entry to cite this and other basic facts. That reference now appears as the first. This may help in reminding us what an encyclopedia entry looks like. Warden (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• One problem I'm seeing through out the article is the use of examples as sources rather than sources as sources. For example it says "Krugman has done much to revive discussion of the liquidity trap as a topic in economics", which is then cited with four sources. But as far as I can tell, these sources are just examples of papers which cite Krugman on liquidity trap, rather than sources which credit him with reviving that idea (I can't access the Cato one atm - which is sort of non-reliable anyway - so I don't know if that one does it). This is a different aspect. And it's partly this "citation by many examples" rather than by an actual source which leads to over-citation mentioned above. It's also present in other parts of the article.Volunteer Marek 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman is a famous economist and a popular and controversial public intellectual. Is there a notably high-quality Wikipedia biography of a similar person that we could use as a model for these suggested changes? Who? Deicas (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman articles are pretty good. Here's are some other good article and featured article quality biographies of economists:

FA's

• Harold Innis
• Richard Cantillon
• Akhtar Hameed Khan

GA's

• Abram Lincoln Harris
• David W. Mullins, Jr.
• Frank Fetter
• Francis Amasa Walker
• Manuel Belgrano
• Max Weber

Interestingly, none of the articles have a 'Controversies' section, the Keynes and Friedman articles have some criticisms of the their economics by other economists, but nothing about their character or actions. The article on Joseph Stiglitz is probably the most comparable to this one in that they are both Nobel prize winners of similar stature and have both commented extensively on politics and economics for the popular press. LK (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

I've removed this section entirely. please feel free to re-add notable criticisms, not just opposition cattiness, in a relevant existing section and using non-primary sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas has been topic-banned, so this is pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Insomesia, when he deleted the "Controversies" section provided as a reason: "deleted until it is shown any of these are indeed notable and not relying on primary sources". Per BDR I have reverted this mass deletion. 1) User:Insomesia: you deleted 23 citations!? Per Wikipedia policy: "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." Please explain how this mass deletion is not disruptive? 2) User:Insomesia: your deletion reason mentions a concern that the section is "relying on primary sources" yet you deleted a large number of citations that are clearly not-primary sources (e.g. The Economist, The New York Review of Books, and The Atlantic). Please explain your reasoning? 2a) If there are sections of the article that rely improperly on a primary sources would you please remove them on a citation-by-citation basis so it's possible to see what's happening. 3) Your deletion reason questioned whether "these are indeed notable". What exactly are "these"? When you refer to "notable" to what Wikipedia policy are you referring? WP:NOTE? 4) If User:Insomesia are going to claim "opposition cattiness" would you please address it on an edit-by-edit basis? In lieu of "opposition cattiness" shouldn't you be citing a guide-line(s) for deletion? Deicas (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Controversy or criticism sections are not appropriate for a BLP.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I quite disagree. Some of the "criticism" is actually notable. In fact, the (former) "Partizanship" section is not even (mostly) criticism — the fact that notable partizans of all types state that he is a liberal partizan should be in the article, and is not a WP:BLP violation even if it were from expert opinions, rather than "neutral" reliable sources. I'm not sure where in the article it should go, but it should be there somewhere.

Furthermore, the fact the Krguman criticizes the Obama Admanistration is not a "criticism" statement, but a statement of his views, and should be in the article if a reliable source can be found. I have doubts that the Daily Beast or the Daily Caller are reliable, even if the Daily Beast has merged with Newsweek. already there. Never mind.

I don't think the "Economics and policy recomendations" subsection of the "criticism" section should stand, but those are comments by notable experts, so might very well be appropriate following the section on his actual policy recomendations. (I see that at least one was already there. Never mind.)

I have no opinion on the Enron section. If he were a conservative economist, though, mainstream (liberal) media would have made it clear it should be in the article. I haven't checked through the sources to see whether we (or the banned editor) has synthesized the section, so I would not restore it.

I would restore the "Partizanship" section as a separate section, unless I see a good reason not to. — — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of the material about 'Partisanship' can fit into the 'Commentator' section. LK (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please identify notable' and non-primary sourced content so we remain NPOV. The overall article, of course, soule inform the reader in a balanced way. Insomesia (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not entirely necessary to have non-primary sources on a non-controversial topic. Is there anyone (including Krugman) who thinks that he is not "liberal"? There may be debate here as to whether he is a "liberal partizan", but I don't think you'll find anyone in the real world who disagrees. <Emerson> I realize I've taken an opposing view on some conservative political figures, and I'm reconsidering those views. I may still come to the same conclusion, but I'll need to reconsider my reasoning. </Emerson> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Krugman Bankruptcy

I've read on various sites that Krugman filed for bankruptcy. For example:

http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read?GUID=23632832

But I can't find any source that seems solid. Does anybody have a solid source for this?

--65.216.189.2 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Numerous searches show this reported as satire. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Looks like he didn't deny it because he wanted to see who would report on it without verifying. 65.216.189.2 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a false story. Krugman posted the story to his blog on Mar 11 2013. Follow his link to the Business Insider story for more. Msnicki (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

wielding his acid pen against austerity

Some critics suggest Krugman got it wrong on austerity, i propose we add some of the material below, without objection.

• Krugman famously said back in December 2008 that Latvia is the new Argentina, it will inevitably go bankrupt, and now he has difficulty apparently admitting he was wrong and so he tries to seek some problems in how Latvia is recovering from the economic crisis, Latvian leader Valdis Dombrovskis [4],
• year after completing a difficult adjustment program, Latvia is the fastest growing economy in the European Union. [5]
• Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has criticized its austerity measures even as European leaders call them an example for the continent. [6]
• Throughout the crisis, Krugman has attempted to explain away or even mock the Baltic countries' success even as they have continued to inconveniently disprove his arguments. Krugman's disregard for the risk of sovereign default is perplexing. His main line of thinking seems to be that Europe has a growth problem, not a debt problem, and he appears to believe that a fiscal stimulus can always overcome the threat of the increased public debt burden. Krugman's claim that devaluation was necessary for Latvia's recovery (and presumably also Estonia and Lithuania's) turned out to be wrong. [7] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a biography. There are WP:NPV, and WP:UNDUE problems with your proposal. We can probably add to his economic views section that he has opposed European austerity, but to only pick up criticisms from those he has criticised is patently biased. LK (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be some criticism pointed out. There is lot's of it.Savo Gajic (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up External Links

Per the tag, I've cleaned up the external links section per WP:EL. These are the links that I removed, in case anyone wants to do anything with them:

• @NYTimesKrugman on Twitter - links to Paul Krugman's New York Times blog posts
• The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography 2008 lecture at NobelPrize.org
• Profile and Papers at Research Papers in Economics/RePEc
• Paul Krugman/Archive 5 at IMDb
• Paul Krugman/Archive 5 on Charlie Rose
• Video: Open Mind Interview, 2002: Part One, 2002, Part Two
• Audio: The New Class War In America featuring Amy Goodman, Paul Krugman, Greg Palast and Randi Rhodes recorded on June 13, 2006 at The New York Society for Ethical Culture, mp3 format, Video: alternate
• Video: Paul Krugman speaks at the World Affairs Council - September 2007
• Video: The Conscience of a Liberal (November 3, 2007) - lecture from Mr. Krugman's 2007 book tour.
• Video of debate/discussion with Paul Krugman and Mario Cuomo on Bloggingheads.tv
• How Paul Krugman Found Politics, Larissa MacFarquhar, The New Yorker, March 1, 2010
• Paul Krugman's video interview on Big Think
• Paul Krugman: Doctor honoris causa by three Portuguese universities - Portuguese American Journal
• How to End This Depression Krugman in the May 24, 2012 New York Review of Books
• Paul Krugman (video) from Marginal Revolution University

LK (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sweatshops are preferable to unemployment

I did check the archives and found some posts indirectly about sweatshops. Link. That's why I would like to have this section focusing on this statement: PK argued that sweatshops are preferable to unemployment. Link Please share your opinion. Thanks. New worl (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Which section do you refer to? Would you care to give a bit more background? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean this talk will focus on PK's view on Sweatshops. New worl (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this have any relevance for the article then? This isn't a general forum for discussions about Krugman, Sweatshops etc, solely a talk page for improving the Krugman article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant. How can editors improve the article without discussing about PK or about his opinion? In fact, asking and sharing is the starting point for a better article. Best, New worl (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

PK writes a lot. We shouldn't use primary sources to put stuff in the article.See WP:BLPPRIMARY Usually, we only include his opinion about something if secondary sources write about it. FurrySings (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FurrySings, could you please provide the link and/or exact text that you want to convey for WP:BLPPRIMARY? Thanks, New worl (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Krugman's economics professor, not relevant?

I added a a highly relevant, scholarly source, who refutes a claim made in the article. it was reverted as not relevant. [8]. i ask the reverting editor to clarify what policy he based this revert and why he would think an economist own economy professor in college, mentioning his former student by name, directing contradicting the former students claim, not relevant? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it is POV. He was Krugman's economic professor therefore he knows more than Krugman. TFD (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Krugman's Internet prediction

I added a quote from Krugman in which he made a prediction the Internet would not have a significant long term impact on the economy. It was reverted as "cherry-picking". I don't feel like quoting a prediction about one of the most significant economic changes in decades is cherry picking, which doesn't seem like a clear policy or guideline position to take. Perhaps there is a better place in the article to place that information, but it seems notable and worth including. I'd like to get additional input on it. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

support adding source. since he is known as an economist, and the source is reliable, and it is a quote about the economy, cherry picking doesn't apply. i ran into the same roadblocks when i tried to add Latvia to the article [9] "latvia-is-the-new-argentina", meaning the country was going to suffer economic ruin. Latvia now leads the 27 member EU in growth. see austerity, i managed to add the source there and someone later added Paul's defense of his prediction, 5 years later only a partial bounceback; unemployment is down but still very high...It's not what you'd call a triumphant success story. perhaps cherry-picking has already happened in the true since, meaning only the "cherries" or good bits are allowed, which is wp:peacock. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source which discusses this prediction? We generally do not use primary sources in such a manner. We rely on secondary sources to highlight significant aspects of primary sources, we don't pick out what we personally prefer from those primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you bring up a good point, more than half of the sources here are Krugman's own articles, would you be willing to help remove those until a secondary source can be produced? in the meantime, more from the article, (1998) the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now ,some other notable omissions thru the years, gold was the reason Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany. and (2002) Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that primary sources should be removed from the article is a misreading of what I wrote. Obviously primary sources are acceptable. My point was that which primary sources we use and which topics we cover should be guided by secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. First of all, it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and second of all, the entire point of adding it to the article (devoid of any context or relevancy whatsoever) seems to be to disparage the subject (by finding random examples where they were wrong in the past in order to cast doubt on their current predictions). The same is true for trying to add "counterpoints" to every opinion the subject has made. This is a biography, not a political debate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

a direct quote is not wp;synth and OR is incorrect, the source was cite, perhaps you did not see the actual edit and/or need to review the policies you cited. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Looneymonkey. Furthermore economists are not psychics who pretend to see into the future. They make projections using the best information available. Obviously unforeseen events may change the course of history, at which point economists revise their projections. If a doctor may tell a patient he expects him to live to the age of 90, and the patient is hit by a bus when he leaves the surgery, does that impeach the doctor's medical expertise? TFD (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nate Silver demonstrated that pundits are wrong about 50% of the time. This would have to be a particularly memorable gaffe to be documented in an encyclopedia article. Despite the effort of what seems like an army of angry internet commenters, I don't see any evidence that this has risen to that level yet. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

40th most influential what?

i suggest we remove [10] as a source. being the 40th most anything is not really encyclopedic, ex: Bush was the 40th most popular president, Miley Cyrus was the 40th top grossing artist of September 2013. not only is this stat trivial, but it has also been misused by editors who extract information from a single month then add that months ranking to the article. today the same link to the SAME SOURCE had Paul at TWO separate rankings [11], neither of which are currently accurate in October 2013 even if we were to use the MONTHLY calculation, which would need to be updated constantly. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

this is becoming tedious. every month the article will need to be edited to correct Krugmans monthly ranking. i changed this to the 10 year average from the same source and was reverted. this source is problematic, peacock, and trivia, falderal begone. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

failed verification tag removed without discussion

[12] is linking to the october results, not the september rankings which are better. i request the editor either provide a source for the September rank, or link to the 10 year average which doesnt change each month. many of the top economist James Heckman, Daron Acemoğlu, Peter C. B. Phillips dont even mention rank, or if they do it reads, "one of the top 10" and provides a generic link to same source. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Krugman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review; comments to follow in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This nomination appears to be a "drive-by" by an editor who hasn't yet worked on the article, so I'll keep my comments below brief for now. While there's a lot of good information here, and the article appears of reasonable quality overall, it needs further work before being ready for GA. For that reason, I'm not listing the article at this time.

The biggest issue is that the article has an outstanding cleanup tag from December 2009, so doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. A few other things that should be cleaned up before this one is renominated for GA:

• Statistics like "He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times, Fortune and Slate." need citation
• "His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative" -- this is a generic and unhelpful summary--what are the things he's praised or attacked for?
• The "In Popular Culture" section is contains some off-topic trivia, a problem for GA criterion 3b.
• Why are "commentary" and "political views" separate sections? Seems like these overlap rather heavily; I'm not sure it's useful to divide them.
• Copyediting appears to be needed; in the very first paragraph, for example, there's "prize Committee" -- "Prize Committee" or "prize committee" might be correct, but surely not "prize Committee".

Thanks to everybody already working on this one. I enjoy Krugman's columns, and I hope this does get to GA at some point! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception to Paul Krugman's writing

I think this article sorely needs a section, or *some* content about other people/economists review of Krugman's major articles, predictions, and theories. I think this would put a lot of needed context around krugman's career. Thoughts? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles than I can count giving critical receptions to his ideas and continuing writings:

• moneymorning.com/2013/01/31/paul-krugman-may-be-the-worlds-last-flat-earth-economist/
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/11/10/paul-krugman-is-wrong-even-when-he-is-right/
• http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/niall-ferguson-paul-krugman-gets-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-why-does-anyone-still-listen-to-him/
• dailyreckoning.com/paul-krugman-blown-to-bits-by-truth-bomb/

Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There's already a lot in the article about people's reaction to his popular commentary and column writing. Let's not forget that he is an economist, first and foremost, so let's not go overboard in emphasizing his popular writings. Interesting though, that considering the many people who write about Krugman's popular writings, all the links you list are only to Krugman's detractors. LK (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

the sources given are widely read, reliable, and relevant. Krugman is whatever RS assert he is, if those mention his popular writing more, than he is now foremost that. support Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they fail rs. As for notability, "NEWSFLASH!!! Spectator columnist bashes Keynsian economist." Probably better to put what those writers think in their own articles. TFD (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

you would need to take that up at the rs noticeboard as those sources are referenced in thousands of articles in wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to take it up in policy, because editorials are not considered to be rs for biographies of living persons. In fact the two sources that do not show external links (moneymorning and dailreckoning) are on the spam blacklist. TFD (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

I find it surprising that, unlike a lot of other economists, this page does not include a "Criticisms" section. Especially since he is such a public, and arguably divisive, figure among economists. Take a look at Milton Friedman and Hayek for example. Clubintheclub (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to contain criticism sections, partly because they cannot be written from a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms can be integrated where relevant. A lot of articles have them because no one argued against them. Complicated issue. See WP:Criticism essay. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Hayek article, where most of the criticism is about his work for Pinochet, it would be better to have a section about his work for Pinochet, then provide various views. In the case of Krugman and Enron, we would mention it chronologically either when he went to work for them or when columnists began to mention it. TFD (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I had actually not known that criticism sections were against wiki rules. I've seen them everywhere and given the massive pages of rules one can easily miss the prohibition against criticism sections. I'm grateful for the information and link to WP:Criticism. Thanks Carolmooredc and TFD for informing us. Of course, there is a loophole if one names the section Critiques, Reception, or Reviews. However, I hope the intent and spirit of WP:Criticism can be maintained by integrating criticism into the topic sections with, of course, due weight. Criticism should be in articles on the subjects but not with undue emphasis in BLPs. BLPs are about the person and there are strong rules to protect people's reputation from malicious damage. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jason. That essay, not policy doesn't say that "criticism" "reception" or other such sections should never be used. It just discusses various pitfalls and concerns with respect to core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see I forgot to include the full context: Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure reads in part: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] The [1] reads: Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.

So, per the criticism essay I linked to, the issue is not that they never can be used but that they should not be used to promote a POV that unbalances the article and such material should be integrated into the text. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section under economic views claims that Krugman advocated the creation of a housing bubble in 2001. This isn't supported by the source; he is making a joke about the lack of options. -213.112.243.88 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that whether Krugman was or was not joking is a matter of debate - he claims that he was. This can be included. The entire section has been removed, based on the IP's comment above, this does not seem justified. I shall restore it, and leave the fine detail to the article regulars. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Here he says he was serious, just misunderstood. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

You also need to show its significance, per "Balancing aspects", which is part of the policy "Neutral point of view": "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." Has the story attracted widespread (or any) attention in mainstream? Incidentally, I suggest you read Krugman's original column. The fed had just created and punctured the nasdaq bubble and the only way to postpone a crash was another bubble. That's like saying the only way Madoff could have been kept out of trouble would be to sell more investments. It does not mean one recommends it. TFD (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I did read it, I understood it, I understood the tone I dare to say. The remarks are covered widely, it is not up to us to agree or disagree, or interpret.

I also provided a link to businessinsider, which has both commentary and rebuttal.

As I indicated that I was leaving the detail to those who are more familiar with the subject I expected that rather than just a re-revert, decent effort would be put into establishing balance and significance. However if you need me to I can look to see what other supporting material there is, it does seem to have been reasonably widely covered at first blush, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

This is typical polemicism - take a single sentence out of context, reverse its meaning, then debate it on blogs. When I type in ""paul krugman" "housing bubble"" on Google books, I cannot find any rs using that interpretation (and Krugman is a prominent economist.)[13] You say the remarks are covered widely. Perhaps in the blogosphere, but not in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I essentially agree with Krugman, that (given certain conditions) "the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble." There are many unanswered questions in that piece (due to its length) which makes it completely reasonable in context.

Whether criticism is polemic or not, if it is significant we should note it.

Krugman considers this significant enough to respond to Business Insider, and to write about it independently here

The quote is covered not just in random blogs, but by [the Huffington Post, for example.

Nor is it isolated Business Insider lists about half a dozen quotes, which provide better context. We say as much ourselves "to promote investment and spending on housing".

Krugman appears to be a controversial figure even among his idealogical allies at the N Y Times.

As Krugman is a leading economist and pundit, it is almost axiomatic that others, economists and pundits, will disagree with him - and publicly. I would find it strange not to have some coverage of this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Enron

I was looking for information about Krugman's relationship or work for Enron but it wasn't int he article. [ WP:BLP disparagement of Krugman removed. Do not reinsert this. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)] Clubintheclub (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few relevant refs that indicate more can be found:

• National Review: In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine.... etc.
• Wall Street Journal]: "former Enron adviser Paul Krugman " and a bit of critical commentary about him
• Andrew Sullivan on Slate: WP:RS actually quotes "Andrew Sullivan's serial pummeling of economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman " on Sullivan's self-published blog. SPS can't be used but others directly quoting them or describing the conflict can be. (Or does anyone inaccurately think SPS quotes directly from Sullivan's blog lambasting Krugman can be used??)

That's for starters. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is Krugman's response. This is a good example of why columns and blogs are not reliable source for biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw that link and thought it was a non-RS Pakistani publication with a similar URL and never looked! The site is run by "Bobby" but found version which obviously is from him here. So now I've bothered to read it and see he is correcting various misconceptions. So obviously the charges in National Review, WSJ and Slate are relevant as his response in at least a paragraph. (And any response to his response should they be found?) Otherwise saavy readers will assume Wikipedia is stupid or that we are leaving it out on purpose. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the charges are significant enough to include. So Krugman once consulted for one of the largest corporations in America which, which unbeknownst to its supporters in the NR and WSJ editorial page, turned out to be run by criminals. Of course no criticism from them about Bill Kristol, Bob Zoellick or any of the other high profile people who worked together. Zoellick's article says he advised Enron in 1999, but it is not posted as criticism; Kristol's article omits it. TFD (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not important enough to me to deal with further, though I actually didn't fully grasp what the originating editor Clubintheclub wrote until SPECIFICO removed just that after I read Krugman's reply. I guess Clubintheclub also had impression Krugman was working for the Times and promoting Enron, as I believe was mentioned in various WP:RS which I can quote on demand. So SPECIFICO really should not have removed something that just describes in slightly dramatic fashion what RS were saying. It's up to that editor to decide what to do about it.

I also don't know how all that WP:RS coverage of Krugman compares to what WP:RS said about other former Enron associates TFD mentioned. But that's really all I have to say; let the misconceptions continue if you like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was you, Carolmooredc, who reinserted that language after I identified it as a policy violation. If you hadn't done that neither of us would have had to waste futher time on it. You violated BLP by reinserting. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I reinserted because I found WP:RS were in fact discussing the issue. Did you look at the WP:RS?? Like I said, I can quote more fully. I am confused about why it is ok to discuss whether or not to include various accusations about some subjects of BLPs - even if it's only speculation - but not WP:RS accusations. I don't even know if there was a reply to Krugman's denials by any WP:RS. And I don't really care. However, I do care if there is some double standard regarding discussion of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the wondrous walls of text on noticeboards that surround some of the editors commenting here, and the participants (specifically Carolmooredc) should bear in mind that while the community has a very high pain threshold and will tolerate bickering for a long time, limits can nevertheless be reached. Once a limit is passed, people are readily topic banned or blocked, and arguing about whether it is desirable for a talk page to highlight claims that a living person was corrupt is the height of absurdity. If someone has a credible proposal for an improvement to the article, it should be outlined with suitable sources, however, it is not helpful to point to some sources just because your opponent removed what they think is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After putting out initial feelers and thinking about it some more, I did propose that it be used to describe - and if possible debunk - the allegation which I can see are widespread among non-WP:RS bloggers, etc., as well as discussed by WP:RS. But as I noted the editors don't seem interested in using it to clear up misconceptions, so I won't continue to argue for it. I have seen far worse speculations continued with no RS at all, despite editors' complaints, which is why I mentioned the double standards issue. So I am glad to see a neutral/non-involved editor say that such things can be removed even if there are lots of WP:RS! (Assuming I'm interpreting you correctly? I just never saw it done before.) In fact there probably are at least a dozen still active threads like that I could remove right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not removing the BLP violation on this page. The problem occurred when you undid the removal, thus repeating the BLP violation. This is something that WP takes very seriously per WP:BLPBAN. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering your edit summary read Removed BLP violation. Find RS and present content. and didn't specify which part of the paragraph you thought was a BLP violation, I merely read it as the lack of WP:RS as being the BLP problem and an invitation to find WP:RS and reverted it all back when and if I found any. And I found a lot. So be a little clearer in edit summaries and we won't have these misunderstandings.

If you thought just the second sentence was the problem, you should have removed that to be clear. I barely noticed that one myself until you removed it the second time. Please assume good faith. I guess you can report me for it and we'll see??? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you can find a few opinion pieces claiming that Krugman recommended creating a housing bubble. But that does not mean it meets the criterion for weight. There is no coverage of the controversy in reliable secondary sources. IOW we do not have an article covering the controversy, just a few writers providing their opinions. With Watergate for example we do not just have Woodward and Bernstein making accusations, but mainstream news sources reported their accusations.

Did you notice btw who is making the accusations? Mark Thornton is with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. One commentary about them in their article says they have "numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers." I'm sure we could find something negative from them about any well-known person with an article.

TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Schiff's comments on Krugman

I agree with the removal of this recent addition. When a person becomes well known, many less well known people will comment on, or criticize them. It would be inappropriate to include all those comments here (although it may be appropriate to include it on the page about the less well known person.) I believe the principle of 'one-way linking' applies here. (See WP:ONEWAY). LK (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

IP range blocked

I've blocked the range 184.23.18.0/23 (nice small range), which encompasses the IPs that have recently been vandalising the article. Feel free to alert me if the vandal jumps somewhere else and continues (then I'll semi). Bishonen | talk 13:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Pronunciation of last name

After hearing Mr. Krugman's last name pronounced incorrectly by various U.S. presidential candidates recently, I used the IPAc-en template to add the proper pronunciation as follows:

• {{IPAc-en|pron|'|k|r|ʊ|g|m|ə|n}} → /ˈkrʊɡmən/

I have 3 questions:

1. Should I have included the first name's pronunciation?
2. I added a "respelling" style of pronunciation, since people I showed the IPACc-en still mis-pronounced his last name. The OO sound is supposed to be shown as UU, which it is, and sounds like "book", not like "goose" or "shrug". Not sure if the respelling technique is clear enough. Any suggestions on how to make this more clear to readers?
   • {{respell|KRUUG|mən}} → KRUUG-mən
3. RE: The reference cited. I would like to add a second reference from Mr. Krugman's own blog on the New York Times where he tells us how to pronounce his last name. Would this violate the policy "Wikipedia:No original research" (WP:NOR), since it is a primary source given that Mr. Krugman is telling us how to pronounce his last name? Here is the reference (see below after my signature).

IceCreamForEveryone (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: After reading Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, I decided to include the reference I asked about in point 3 above. Please let me know if this is wrong. This sentence in particular convinced me:

• "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements."

IceCreamForEveryone (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Missing information on globalization

The 'New Trade Theory' section describes Krugman as usually 'supportive of free trade of globalization'. It should be specified that: Krugman points out that although globalization has been positive on a whole, since the 1980s the process known as hyper-globalization has at least played a part in rising inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whileworth (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Krugman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090725084400/http://nytimes.com/2003/03/21/opinion/21KRUG.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/opinion/21KRUG.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link to Krugman's blog. Is that appropriate for Wikipedia? If not, feel free to remove it HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted. We already have his blog linked 21 times in the text. Also, his NYT bio page has a link to his blog. See WP:LINKFARM. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory statements about the number of citations of the second-ranked paper.

First par of 'New economic geography': "This would become Krugman's most-cited academic paper: by early 2009, it had 857 citations, more than double his second-ranked paper."

First par of 'International finance': "Krugman's paper is considered one of the main contributions to the 'first generation' of currency crisis models,[53][54] and it is his second-most-cited paper (457 citations as of early 2009)"

The same reference is given for both these claims, but since 857 is not more than twice 457, both cannot be true.

82.150.99.2 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

at the end of the "On President Trump" section: *In January 2018 Krugman was awarded the first prize in president Trump's newly created "Fake News Awards". Krugman had claimed immediately after President Trump’s victory that the economy would never recover. On the contrary it had been booming since.* FKSM (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done. It may or may not be worth mentioning the "Fake News Award". If it is included, how to phrase it is a tricky one. Your last sentence, even if it were supported by a reliable source, would be a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. To not be SYNTH, you would need a reliable source describing what Krugman meant by "never recover" and comparing it to reality. Yaris678 (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Understood, I omit the last sentence; at the end of the "On President Trump" section: *In January 2018 Krugman was awarded the first prize in president Trump's newly created "Fake News Awards". Krugman had claimed immediately after President Trump’s victory that the economy would never recover. FKSM (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Yaris678 Paul Krugman did make that prediction markets would ‘never recover’ under Trump which is clearly wrong and is clearly covered in WP:RS newspapers as worldwide as diverse like the South China Morning Post ,Chicago Tribune ,Financial Times and even Forbes even a editorial in the Washington Times here and think this along with Trump awards clearly need to be mentioned and agree with FKSM. It is a fact that in the article in the New York Times in which he wrongly stated that the markets would ‘never recover’ under Trump when in fact Dow hit a new high under him Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The SCMP, WaPo and Forbes do not mention the "Fake News Awards" - all from before it was a thing. The Chicago Tribune says it is odd the Krugman features in those awards, since he was giving an opinion, not news, and then says "Clearly that prediction has not happened. So Krugman looks like he has egg on his face. But we are betting he would argue that we need to wait till 2020 to see if his prediction turns true". I can't see what the FT says as I don't have a subscription. Yaris678 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nope. This is a BLP and it's not even clear if the awards themselves are notable enough for a separate article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• But we can mention he made a wrong prediction it is clearly sourced if not in the lead in the article it is being reported worldwide it is clearly notable. The Australian and The Independent .USA Today.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah. He retracted the prediction just a few days later and corrected himself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think its strange to have a separate section in the Krugman-article dedicated to his views on Trump and then not report this prize when it was even covered in major French, German or Spanish news outlets. --Merkasso (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You would need to find independent RS discussion of this "wrong prediction" as a noteworthy event. Then you would need to demonstrate that it's noteworthy in the context of PK's life and work. Since he's not known as a stock market pundit, and most such pundits are "wrong" between 47 and 53% of the time, you've got a tough row to hoe. It fails WP:WEIGHT among other policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• per Merkasso There is a section On President Trump when that is that is there then Trump's comment about Fake news should be there cannot be see this a WP:UNDUE as there is section on President Trump and states his views on the President hence felt Trump's comment on him also should be there to balance it.Of course one can say it was retracted and further the media like South China Morning Post quotes him even on 02 January, 2018 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Garbled please clarify? SPECIFICO talk

When there is a section for On President Trump in the article why can we not add Trump view comments on Krugman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that due weight and notability are commutative -- A is competent to evaluate B's policies therefore B is competent to evaluate A's expertise. No can do. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not evaluate the point which is made by Merkasso and FKSM also is only to mention that Krugman had claimed immediately after President Trump’s victory markets would ‘never recover’ under Trump which is wrong which can sourced with WP:RS all the major newspapers are reporting it which Trump calls it Fake news (later retracted by Krugman himself) which can also be mentioned. Consensus is divided with 3 in favour and 3 not in favour Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean counting "votes". This would violate policy and editing guidelines, per this thread. Please review the stated reasons. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I was not just pointing that Consensus appeared divided through it is sourced in WP:RS not at vote counting which is never a factor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Not everything that can be verified in a source will warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO

talk 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that biased people are trying to conceal from this article the fact that Krugman screwed up bigtime and made a prediction that the market would never recover under Trump. Further, it is utterly irrelevant that Krugman is said to have "retracted" that statement: I contend that in the real (non-legal) world, you cannot (and do not need to) "retract" such a statement. If you change your mind, you may simply say so. It would be appropriate to also mention the fact and date of that "retraction", as would of course be necessary for anybody wanting to mention it in this article. (Having done a Google search, I rarely see claims that Krugman "retracted", and so far I've never seen an actual quote to that effect.) No doubt Krugman's defenders will do so, if they can find a Reliable Source which mentions that retraction, but the existence of that changed mind does not justify a conclusion that such comments cannot be properly placed in a supposedly-encyclopedic document such as WP. Remember the plea, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!!!" Did THAT do any good at all? Epanue (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He retracted it two days after he originally wrote it: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/ "But it’s important not to expect this to happen right away. There’s a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now." He's mentioned that retraction several times in other columns; he has at various times gone into past statements he's made that turned out to be wrong, and what he's learned from them. Being willing and able to admit when one is not analyzing a situation rationally is laudable. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a "non-denial denial"? That article you cited amounts to a "non-retraction retraction": A statement which is so wildly ambiguous so that no matter what happens in the future, he is virtually guaranteed to be able to say, "I was right!". If the economy crashes, Krugman can say, "I was right!". If the economy takes 2 years to crash, he can say, "I was right!". If the economy takes 10 years to crash, Krugman can say, "I was right!". There will always be a recession in the future, until such point that we learn how to completely avoid having recessions. All in all, I'd prefer a person who doesn't make a mistake, to a person who makes a mistake and then ambiguously admits it. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:C9F3:7179:44BC:F6BB (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This guy has lots of issues and memes

I think we need to put some criticism and controversy He has made so many memes it's online and lots of Flip Flops He had almost exchange with most of other economists and talked some wrong predictions He definitely needs some criticism put on WIKI

I second this. Krugman has been refuted numerous times and numerous other Wikipedia pages for economists include a "Criticisms" tab, including Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman and Peter Schiff. Obvious bias if you ask me. Ghoul flesh • talk 17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ghoul flesh, the bias is that those pages have criticism sections. Those should be removed, per WP:CSECTION. This page is for discussing Krugman's article only. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on trade

As of mid-2019, the lengthy section on trade fails both WP:NPOV and WP:Here. It misrepresents differing responses to differing situations, within the context of generally consistent views, as self-contradiction. It uses excessively long quotations that do not add value to the article. It includes large amounts of material that would better appear in discussions of specific economic topics, where it would be one notable economist's opinion to compare to others. (For instance: free trade, the China/US bilateral relationship, currency manipulation.) It uses suggestive words such as "admit" to suggest a concession, when it's describing statements that fit comfortably within the overall structure of New Trade Theory, in violation of WP:SYNTH. It mischaracterizes and oversimplifies the work for which the Nobel committee awarded Krugman their prize.

The point of a WP:BLP is not to engage in "gotcha" games using selectively edited statements. If Wiki editors are interested in assembling a section on this topic that honestly presents variations in how the founder of New Trade Theory reacts to different trade scenarios, or points out areas where different positions truly are difficult to reconcile, that would be great -- though arguably it would be better in the article about NTT. The current content reads as sophistry, aimed at shoring up one political position over another, rather than elucidating a theory in a way that would help a reader understand either the body of Krugman's work, or whether it accurately represents how trade works in the real world. --Rmharman (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Evidently a brand new account that's never edited anything else is reverting changes, using embedded tags in the edit summaries, which strongly suggests the editor is not actually new. Their comments also suggest that my version is "only arguments in favor of trade". In fact, the cut-down version retained some citations to Krugman's comments on Chinese currency manipulation, and on the relative unimportance of recent trade deals (particularly the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on which he was ambivalent). The edit summaries also lean on the idea that the excessive quotation material is cited. It is, but that's irrelevant. Material is selectively quoted to create the illusion of contradiction, and the surrounding verbiage plainly shows an intent to catch Krugman in some kind of self-contradiction or hypocrisy, rather than to provide a biography. Rmharman (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Also of note, the likely sock-puppet account is making one-character edits after their reversions, to make reversions of their changes more annoying. Rmharman (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The word stagflation misused

Under the "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy" part of the article the word stagflation is used to describe the situation if deflation and slow economic growth in Japan during the 1990's, this is a misuse of the word. Stagflation is normally used for a situation of high inflation and slow (or negative) economic gowth, such as the situation in the UK and US in the late 1970's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.32 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010‎ (UTC)

I don't see stagflation in the article, though I do see stagnation. Possibly somebody edited / cleaned up the issue. I believe this segment of Talk can be removed / resolved. Rmharman (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Most famous blunder

In 1998 Paul Krugman famously predicted: “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” That should definitely be in here, I think. Cancun (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What secondary sources do you propose to use for content about this? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is supposed to reflect neutral viewpoints, why is SPECIFICO censoring everything he doesn’t agree with? 2601:6C5:8400:3F80:849A:D5AF:D1F3:927D (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO didn't censor anything. SPECIFICO asked for a reliable source, which is required on Wikipedia for verifiability and neutral point of view. I understand that it's easier to complain about being censored than to collaborate effectively, but you should still try it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If one checks the change log, SPECIFICO just deletes talking points that go against his political views. You selected the one isolated case where SPECIFICO asked for source, and you ignored at least a half dozen cases where Specifico summarily deleted comments he didn’t agree with.

why is Specifico “guarding” this talking page anyway? Does he work in PR for Krugman? Why does he refuse to allow any balance in coverage? 148.75.162.21 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Krugman just recently admitted, in the left wing NYTimes that actually employs him (CUNY is just a cover story), that he was wrong about inflation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/paul-krugman-inflation.html

Of course, Krugman never truely admits he was wrong, he and his PR team are masters at managing his image. Krugman goes on to "redefine" what he said, and "rephrase" the nature of the debate - all in a vane effort to claim Krugman got the call wrong, but it wasn't his fault. The people who disagreed with him didn't understand the argument he made to as an excuse for his failure.

As is his modus operandus, Krugman claims to be infallible. Everyone else is wrong.

PS - as a Princeton Alum, I know that Krugman was allowed to say he retired to let him save face - and to avoid culpability on the part of Princeton. Princeton had been named in at least three lawsuits, two accusing the university of advertising fraud and another that the university was misappropriating donated funds. The university made public claims about student faculty rations that were misleading at best. The university claimed that graduates were given employment offers (average starting pay for graduates) that were far above the actual offers a typical grad received. And the university accepted donations for specific uses specified by donors, and then used the funds for other purposes, often purposes that conflicted with the donor's wishes. The university was desparate to avoid negative publicity, preferably without admitting legal liability.

Among academics, there is a huge difference between Princeton University and the City University of NY (CUNY). No rational tenured professor would actually leave (cough "retire") Princeton to take a new job at CUNY / writing op-eds for the NYTimes. Perhaps Wiipedia has to be careful about how to phrase this involuntary departure, but a neutral and objective publication would admit that Krugman has a LOT of controversies associated with him.

Now lets see how long it takes Krugman's PR team (SPECIFICO etc) to delete this post rather than debate it 148.75.162.21 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a part of the article discussing his science fiction writing? Because some of his published works are explicitly science fiction.

Most recently, [Billionaires Shouldn’t Live Forever]

It explicitly states that:

"This is part of a series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years from now. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The opinion piece below is a work of fiction."

I like this idea. Could reference some of his writings about how he came to economics having been inspired by psychohistory, the discipline of modeling the future described in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. He's also written about his admiration for various other SF authors (I know he's specifically mentioned Iain M Banks' Culture series). And he has a very funny paper about how temporal effects would affect interstellar trade, interest rates, and capital flows. --Rmharman (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

September 27, 2019 tweet

I think it’s inevitable that an encyclopedia intended to be neutral primarily draws close followers but also committed critics, and there’s no objective line between what’s notable and what isn’t. I would submit, though, that Mr. Krugman’s tweet suggesting that Trump’s behavior towards journalists would culminate in him arresting countless journalists doesn’t meet that threshold. If a tweet of his were to be included at all, it would probably be the one a year later, in which he denied the occurrence of a mass outbreak of anti-Muslim violence. (EDIT: It looks like a mention of it at the time was removed, ostensibly for the direct link to Twitter.) — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)