Talk:Mark Weisbrot

message: : I enjoyed reading this analysis. Let me first respond within the logic of the argument you have provided, that is, the argument that the content of Weisbrot's page should be based on raw, unweighted search hits from a single search engine. As you know, the Scorecard series examines the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) role in global growth over the past 50 years. This is all in the text about the Scorecard paper provided in the article. Knowing that, we should sum topics related to what the Scorecard covers to get a better sense of its role. Summing, Scorecard, Globalization, Global Economy, and IMF in the tables above moves the Scorecard to the first place position in all lists but two. Now, obviously all of those articles aren't about the Scorecard per se, but the fact that the Scorecard shows up by itself in the list at all shows its prominence within those debates. The other topics are countries and demographic/economic trends, which would obviously pick up a much wider array of hits than something narrowly titled "Scorecard."
: Now I would like to respond to the merits of the argument's methodology (using search hits as a relevant metric for Balancing aspects). I think something you and I agree on is the importance of reliability, and there is no way to tell from the data presented which of those hits are reliable and which are not. For example, if someone writes ten million articles of fake news about United States President Donald Trump saying he is an alien, I don't think the raw volume of those articles makes for a strong argument about including those claims in his article. -DenizenGene (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re "the logic of the argument you have provided, that is, the argument that the content of Weisbrot's page should be based on raw, unweighted search hits from a single search engine", pls reread and note that I said no such thing.  I have explained to you why there are more independent, third-party analyses of the areas in which his work is clearly focused.  If you hope to make changes to this page, please come back with independent, third-party reliable sources, if you can find them.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification. I'm challenging that analysis, based on the credibility of the data (raw search engine results). Let me provide an example of something I'm worried about re: the data vis-a-vis Balancing Aspects. Say, hypothetically, Weisbrot had in his entire career written one piece on Brazil. Say that this piece didn't have much impact on anything, but third-party sources loved it, so they wrote tens of thousands of articles about it. It would simply not be correct for us to dedicate space in the article proportionate to how many hits it received. That's my worry about the data provided. We simply don't know if it's reliable coverage, unreliable coverage, or false positives. After taking the structural integrity of the data into account, I come to the conclusion that this data cannot be used to affect the page's Balancing Aspects. I hear you about reliable sources. --DenizenGene (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , I believe you get the point. I repeat:  no one has suggested anywhere that we base space in the article proportionate to ghits.  The point is we have sources on Venezuela because that is a large focus of Weisbrot's work and publications in news columns. There are third-party sources discussing Weisbrot and Venezuela for a reason. If you would like to broaden the article, please provide reliable, independent, third-party sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent, and as long as those sources aren't overly represented when taking into account Weisbrot's body of work, then this article will be golden. Aside: would you mind removing my IP address from your previous comment? It wasn't your fault at all, but it feels a bit exposing to have it so publicly listed. Sorry about the poor signatures. I got logged out after leaving the computer for a bit >< -DenizenGene (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of focus 

message: ::: This option was added by DenizenGene at 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3 

message: Has Weisbrot given any other comments regarding the current economic crisis of Venezuela or its hyperinflation, since he saw it as an unlikely scenario? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperinflation 

message: I have removed yet another example of what this article already has too much of:  an over-reliance on self-sourcing and too much text lacking in independent, third-party sourcing, containing original research or puffery cited to the subject himself.
For the past 20 years, Weisbrot has written and commented on the US economy, starting with his 1999 book,  Social Security:  The Phony Crisis (see Works & Publications, here below).  He has also written extensively on the state of the US labor market, and other topics relating to the US welfare state, and addressed domestic issues on programs such as C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” and American Public Media’s "Marketplace".  The book is already covered elsewhere in the article.  ORIGINAL RESEARCH and puffery cited to self:  "for the past 20 years", "extensively".  Not a single third-party, independent discussion of his positions on these self-cited views.
Here are more examples:
1.  NO THIRD PARTY SOURCE, no context, no reason given to the reader for this mention.  
Weisbrot co-authors with CEPR a series of papers looking at the progress in economic growth and social indicators. In 2017, he presented the most recent report, which emphasized the role of China, with economist Jeffrey Sachs in Washington, DC.
2.  SELF-SOURCED, ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
Weisbrot has continued to suggest that the founding of other alternative lending and finance institutions that do not include participation by the U.S., such as those being created by the BRICS countries, may have positive implications both for borrowing countries and in terms of weakening the influence of Washington-based institutions like the IMF.
3.  Entire paragraph self-cited, no independent, third-party discussion of these views or context as to why this is included.
Weisbrot has argued that, from 2003 to 2011, Brazil was successful in reducing poverty and inequality, and increasing GDP growth. Weisbrot attributed these successes in part to policy changes that were an improvement over the neoliberal program Brazil adopted in the 1980s. However, he was critical of austerity and high interest rates after 2010, arguing that these were unnecessary and led to a prolonged recession. Weisbrot argued against the impeachment of former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the corruption conviction of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2018, pointing to a lack of precedent and evidence to justify the proceedings.
  Similar occurs throughout-- these are samples only.
It is appropriate to self-cite a bio with respect to things like where the subject was born and when, where he went to school, etc.  It is not appropriate to self-cite for puffery.   Please stop adding text based on what Weisbrot and CEPR say about Weisbrot, and seek out what independent, third-party sources say about Weisbrot on each topic.  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-reliance on self-sourcing 

message: What's with the    and the missing date of birth? That is not not common practice, that is we do give the date of birth (or at least they year) if it is publicly documented/known. So why is is it not the case here? Is there special conflict or administrational decision not to provide it?--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth year/age