Talk:Robert Reich

message: Substituted at 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following para:
"In February 2017, Reich published a conspiracy theory purporting that left-wing violence at UC Berkeley against Donald Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos was a right-wing false flag for Trump to strip universities of federal funding. This idea was described as "phantasmagorical" by The Washington Post.[34]"
Has been added repeatedly by a user, User_talk:Valentina Cardoso.  The statement is (1) a bad-faith reading of Mr. Reich's claim, (2) in hideous violation of NPOV, (3) not a notable event in Mr. Reich's career.  If the article wasn't protected I would correct it myself (as other anon IP readers have tried to do).
Looking at the user's contribution history, they are bent on editing conservative viewpoints into Wikipedia, and not actually providing any encyclopedic information.  Wikipedia is not your soapbox.
71.114.37.58 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I have restored it but I reduced it to what he said, which is that he wouldn't rule out that theory. This is different from originating or outright endorsing it. However, overall, I think we need to think of WP:NOTNEWS in general with his article and recent events are not really things we should be adding unless they're very pivotal (such as awards).  Please comment here, or I will undo my restoration of your content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included at all. It was a minor remark and nothing he's followed up on. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: At least they acknowledge it. I haven't read what the IP changed, but certainly Robert Reich doesn't have the right to determine what is or is not in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: thoughtcrime ! thoughtcrime ! ooh ! ooh ! Give him to the Dominicans, they'll get to the bottom of this quickly ! You people ... 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war re Milo Berkeley visit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718192353/http://www.vize.cz/en/laureates.php to http://www.vize.cz/en/laureates.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Multiple sources list Robert Reich's height (4 ft 10). For example: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1049185/
This is relevant information for this article, and yet it is removed every time someone attempts to add it. Why is that? 45.62.219.78 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not a reliable source. Lots of the content is user-contributed. Find a reliable secondary source for his height. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as pure trivia. Eye color and hair color is verifiable too, but it doesn't matter. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF. We are under no obligtion to fill out every conceivable field: we generally only include height and weight in infoboxes for occupations that commonly and consistently mention it, e.g. .  states the height field should only be used If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant.  Reich is not notable for his height, nor is height relevant enough to include in the infobox. Please discuss here before reintroducing it. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/03/14/the-true-measure-of-a-man/aabb4f4d-aa29-4200-9190-f2bc2b28403c/?utm_term=.8a2c7eab8e6eb Seems like it's notable to me. Seems like a good source as well. Gripdamage (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  Additionally Reich himself has claimed his shortness as part of his public persona. See this blog post: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/i-was-always-very-short-for-my-age-and-when-i-was-a-kid-relied-on-a-few-older-bo/815357705143494/ See the trailer for Inequality For All that opens with a comment about his size and contains another comment about being picked on by bigger boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCbAyk8aRxI Clearly this is a part of his own image as cultivated by him. Gripdamage (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I think the thing most people want to know is does he have dwarfism or some other medical condition. I presume not and the definition of dwarfism is stature less than 4'10" so he's not technically a dwarf, just much shorter than the american norm for males which is 5'9" but much taller than the average individual with dwarfism. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, see the medical condition is mentioned, the actual stature number I'm sure is available from the subject, if that doesn then result in primary source snafu. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: Just to point out, you are currently using the same pic twice - in the infobox and then, almost immediately below, in the early life section.Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. It was a recent change and I just undid it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing double? 

message: I've restored (again) the quote from Reich's letter to the Landmarks Commission in Berkeley opposing redevelopment of a local house; it's illustrative to contrast his language in the letter ("character of the neighborhood") with that in the interview. grendel|khan 16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to local development and the inclusion of quotes. 

message: Robert Reich isn't an economist. If this is even a debate, we have crossed the grounds from p to n statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia bases its content on reliable sources, including publications like The New York Times. Please continue the discussion above rather than starting a new thread about the same topic. Please also sign your comments as explained in the talk page guidelines: WP:TPG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm
I am aware of WP:RS, but I honestly don't know how a (opinion) piece on a new Netflix series (not academic at all) suffices this criteria. I have posted a  source for it under Krugman's Princeton website. Please refrain from vandalism in the future. Secondly, an off-hand reference in a NYT article about a Netflix series isn't enough to push a policy opportunist and lawyer by trade into the "economist" position. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 22:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you would falsely claim that a business news story by a staff reporter at The New York Times is an "opinion" piece, but there are numerous other sources cited in the discussion above, which is where you should be posting your comments. Please also properly indent your comments and follow the other talk page guidelines. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist 

message: The current lede reads like a promotional self-bio and, indeed, the quoted paragraph from just such a bio in the topic about how Reich isn't an economist appears to be what much of the content of the lede was taken from. The current lede does not appear to even resemble a neutral point-of-view and instead reads more like an advertisement for books or speaking/consulting gigs from Mr. Reich. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. Vbscript2 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the lede please be rewritten in a less advertising, more neutral manner?