Talk:Nouriel Roubini/Archive 1

Request for Comment

I did not think the comment on his pessimism was apt in the way it was positioned and written. It seemed to read like a 'yeah' you too or like negative advertising. Perhaps if it could be worked into the main body and not as a separate criticism section it would read better. Any suggestions? The artiole for biographies almost always seem biased in favour for its subject. See Nicola Tesla; it's even worse than les mordus of Turkish football clubs who guard jealously. LaidOff (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Edit in question:

Criticism

Numerous economists and financial market participants have pointed to Roubini's chronic pessimism and numerous incorrect predictions. This was summarized using many documented media sources by nationally syndicated newspaper columnist Eric Tyson. Economist Anirvan Banerji cited Roubini's incorrect predictions from a 2006 IMF conference and stated that "Roubini is the Boy Who Cried Wolf."

IMHO, it would be OK if Eric Tyson were an economist. So the key issue is whether it's reasonable to quote a "non-economist" to discredit a "noted economist." I don't think so since that would undermine the validity of the biography. It might be like quoting an astrologer to discredit a noted astronomer. They're all experts with overlapping interests, but it really takes another astronomer equal to the status of the person discussed to be meaningful. Tyson does not refer to himself as an economist, and while he has a right to an opinion, and may be correct, it undermines the validity of the article.

I would be careful, in any case, of using Tyson's comments because it could backfire: note that the latest consensus is that the current recession started in the 4th quarter of 2007. Therefore, Tyson would need to revise his own comments to seem credible. I'd even suggest a mild apology on his page since his assault on Roubini's credibility is pretty strong. Tyson wrote:

"And, then there's this article from Business Week, which states, "Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University who was worried about a global recession in 2004, is now predicting that "the U.S. is heading toward a sharp recession by early 2007."

"So there you have it. Roubini predicted a recession in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. He was wrong four years in a row. So, in 2008, his prediction appears to be finally coming true.

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of the wp:3rr issue.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, LaidOff has an axe to grind with Mr. Tyson, who is a widely syndicated newspaper columnist. Witness his attacking him as a "tout" in the comments section for Roubini's entry and erroneously as a financial planner. Apparently LaidOff has never heard of the best-selling books Personal Finance for Dummies and Investing for Dummies.

LaidOff absurdly argues against quoting Tyson because he's a non-economist! Using that logic, Roubini's near entire entry should be expunged since most of it is sourced to journalists at places like magazines and newspapers who never have such credentials!

LaidOff also erroneously says that Mr. Tyson isn't an economist - this is irrelevant - and LaidOff is wrong again. Tyson is a trained economist (at Yale, no less).

In summary, it seems that the minions here are prejudiced against any sources online except actual magazines and newspapers. Guess who writes those articles? Smart fellows like Mr. Tyson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.15.161 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Tyson's notability that's in question, especially in light of numerous edits/reverts related to his website in the last few days. Rather than worrying about other editors, it would be more helpful to establish Tyson's authority (see WP:N) and quote Tyson's comments to sources meeting WP:RS, which should include at least some of the 30 newspapers said to carry his column. If you need help with sourcing, then there are plenty of editors who will help. Flowanda | Talk 02:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is also at the heart of this

Reading the section on "Self-published and other questionable sources" you'll see the problem. You're getting information from a self-published website, not an independent source. If a magazine quoted Tyson's opinion on a subject, and that magazine was considered a decent source for the subject, then quoting the magazine would be fine, no matter what it said. You just need to find a valid "outside" source that uses Mr. Tyson's information. In that case, with enough sources, he could create his own page on Wiki. But note that even on his own page, he would not be allowed to write about himself - it would have to come from outside sources.

I also recommend removing the page protection now that this subject is open for discussion. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of above

The content below was moved from the article to obtain consensus, opinions, and Wiki guideline observation.

This is a continuation (by apparently the same person) of the earlier discussion. But the material below is phrased like a plug for Mr. Tyson's site and comes from his own website, and that's not an acceptable or valid source. The user also seems to be pushing hard to find anything to show that Roubini has made innacurate predictions, even when no actual "prediction" was made. My hunch is that if Mr. Tyson saw the way the user was pushing his personal viewpoints as coming from outside, independent, and verifiable sources, he would be bothered as it makes Tyson seem like he's both self-promoting and arguing on secondary and specious issues.

In any case, Mr. Tyson is an investment author, not an economist. From his website's About page:

"Eric Tyson is a best-selling personal finance book author and has penned five national best sellers. . . He writes two syndicated newspaper columns - one on investing and personal finance, the other on real estate..." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

section moved

In October, 2008, speaking before a major U.K. hedge fund conference, Roubini said, "...hundreds of hedge funds are poised to fail as frantic investors rush to redeem their assets and force managers into a fire sale of assets...We've reached a situation of sheer panic. Don't be surprised if policymakers need to close down markets for a week or two in coming days." This prediction never came close to becoming true. Syndicated newspaper financial columnist and Wall St. Journal best-selling author Eric Tyson analyzed this and many other Roubini predictions since 2003.

x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.182.157 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to make a comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.182.157 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1: Please contact Eric Tyson at eric@erictyson.com to discuss these issues. - Eric Tyson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.182.157 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would go against Wiki guidelines to do that as any "Discussion" relating to articles and content are always kept public. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1: I have been contacted by a couple of people regarding this page and your edits. While I haven't reviewed everything in this pages' enormously lengthy edit history, I have some observations and concerns: 1) You've made a number of offensive comments about me and my work and background which seem to reflect an ignorance on your part of who I am, my background and interests and an ignorance of newspaper journalism. I am a syndicated columnist and the PRINT publications for which I write (which number in the dozens) don't post my column online (I have the right to do that on my website). My column is read by more people than who subscribe to the New York Times which seems to be a paper you are familiar with and for which you seem to have an affinity. 2) Others believe that you seem to love Dr. Roubini - so, it's comical for you to question others' objectivity when you don't seem to be on this topic. You have quickly expunged anything you perceive as negative on Roubini's profile. 3) I'm writing an article about the topic of objectivity in journalism in general and wanted to interview you for your perspectives and side of the story. Since you claim to be interested in objectivity, the only thing stopping you from contacting me would be the fear of exposing who you are. If that's your concern, I would willingly not use your name in anything I write up. Eric@EricTyson.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.184.240 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric, I don't think anything I said was "offensive" and certainly was not intended to be. Actually it was more the opposite, as I even suggested that an article could be created about you, implying that your background would probably support one. I only pointed out that the source material could not come from a "self-published" website. Here I even linked to the Wiki rules about that. By the way, there were others involved in this discussion and I think you may have read their comments, not just mine.

To give an example of the "valid source" issue, I've started expanding an article on Jonas Salk and hope to add more quotes and references. In reading over the article, I noticed an entire paragraph devoted to the opinions of Esther Lederberg, who was "an American microbiologist and immunologist and pioneer of bacterial genetics. . . and "also founded and directed the Plasmid Reference Center at Stanford University." She was both a "colleague and friend" of Salk. Basically, her opinions would be fully acceptable as a valid source for outside opinions of his work and she was obviously a peer. But the problem I found was that the paragraph included only material taken from her website. Hence, someone is using her as an "independent" source while the source was not independent by its "self-published" nature. If a professional journal had quoted her or used her research and opinions, the material would probably be valid as a source. I haven't removed the paragraph yet since I just started working on the article but when I get to that section I'll try to find some outside source material before simply removing it, just as I suggested that an editor try to find outside sources for your opinions.

I can give you plenty of other examples of where I removed unsourced or improperly sourced material. By the way, in the Roubini edits I made I did not add the NY Times cite, someone else did that months ago. However, I did add some recent cites from other sources, such as Bloomberg, Foreign Policy, and Fortune. As for an interview, I'll have to pass, thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV claim and tag

Per the requirement for using this general article tag at the top of a page, there must be a discussion about why the tag is appropriate. Because this article already has numerous quotations and 12 separate sources, a WP:NPOV dispute would need to have a high burden of proof, using clear examples from the article. If such is not forthcoming ASAP, I propose the tag be removed. There are many articles with few or no sources and where the POV might be a factor. The tag is more appropriate on those.

I think it's far more logical to add to this article with any valid sources where Roubini's statements have been disputed. His views and the views of other known economists are not secret. Hope that all made sense. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A. It's CLEAR from this article's history WikiWatcher that sources were added. For some strange reason, you and others quickly removed them. Why do you have such an affinity for Roubini?

B. The man operates a FOR PROFIT consultancy - that's how he makes money. Where is that discussed?

Also, on the POV page, is says:

C. "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"."

D. How many times have you and other shills for Roubini violated this precept??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.7.235 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to above

Note I added letters to each of your key points above to keep issues clear.

A. This is a meaningless comment. You have given no examples of any POV issues. Articles always have continual additions, corrections, improvements and deletions. For you to conclude things were "quickly" removed and therefore whoever did that has an "affinity" for Roubini is a nonsensical argument and themselves manifest an obvious negative bias;

B. The article has never implied his "economic consulting firm" was non-profit. In fact, the word "firm" makes that obvious. Your reply where you first put "FOR PROFIT" in all caps for no logical reason, and then say "that's how he makes his money" implies that you think it's rare for economists to earn money at their profession. Another double-compound ridiculous statement unrelated to anything in the article.

D. For you to call anyone a "shill for Roubini" based on hollow arguments and calling it a violation of NPOV is argumentative, baseless, hostile, a failure to assume good faith, and are all themselves clear violations of a neutral point of view. The fact that all the arguments have come from the same general IP location in Connectictut as Eric Tyson implies a possible violation against spamming and self-promotion as he has apparently not complained about whoever is misusing Wiki's guidelines.

Conclusion: your POV tag is baseless and hostile in intent. It was placed there without reasonable cause despite being given plenty of time to reply properly. It will not be allowed to remain and any further hostile tagging will be treated as vandalism. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the discussion

I stumbled upon this page, and I'm quite appalld by the tone of the discussion. May I remind you that you are on a public forum, seen by people worldwide? Bernard Dupre (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The text states: "I was born into a relatively orthodox Jewish family in Iran" but at the beginining of this page it states that he was born in "Istanbul, Turkey" These two sentences are contradictory. Place of birth is either Turkey or Iran. These are two different counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.221.130 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

17Aug2008 NYT: "He was born in Istanbul, the child of Iranian Jews, and his family moved to Tehran when he was 2, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also note that there is a contradiction on where he was born. This place maybe Iran, it may be Turkey, or it may be some other nation. Hppboston (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The Janera article (footnote #6) says both places in the same article! The NY Times article, "Dr. Doom", has it as Turkey. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)