Talk:Peter Diamond

message: "One of the main results of this paper is that the decentralized equilibrium might be dynamically Pareto efficient even though it is ex ante inefficient." - or at least can we get a citation for it? As far as I understand it the implication of the model is that the equilibrium (or equilibria) are generically inefficient, period. That is, unless the relevant parameters happen to line up "just right", it's gonna be Pareto sub-optimal. So "one of the main results of this paper is that" the decentralized equilibrium(s) will typically be inefficient (a different question is by how much). I guess one can sort of start making sense of the statement as it's currently written by bringing in Diamond's Impossibility Theorem on the social discounting of successive generations welfare (which is another major contribution so far unmentioned in the article) but it's not clear how the two connect (if in fact they actually do). Clarify? Provide source? Or get rid of it.radek (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: What is his story from childhood? What is his religious background? What kind of person was he in his high school years? 202.29.57.215 (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions.  From what I've seen, his writing comes from a theoretical perspective that makes it clear he's never run so much as a lemonade stand, but citations of such would be good. 71.200.35.243 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add more of this person's background

message: Why? Even though I've provided a source for that. And how come NNDB is suddenly considered to be an unreliable source, when it's acceptable evereywhere else in the wiki? עמירם פאל (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why use the pejorative term "concealing"? NNDB has never been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. For a recent discussion see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 101#NNDB. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. To my paranoid Jewish brain it seemed you were following me and erasing every mention of good thing I had edited about Jewish persona. Let's start from scratch and work TOGETHER at the three relevant articles. Here for one - It seems this source reliability was indeed questioned more then once, but it's still being used everywhere in the Wiki. To me the solution seems to be, don't use it whenever the issue is controvercial. Do you have any doubt or even the remotest reason to doubt he was Jewish? I'm sure you don't, no reasonable one at least. And reading his autobiography in the source you did allow, suggest this fact very strongly too. עמירם פאל (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To comply with WP:BLP, sources must be reliable, and NNDB simply doesn't qualify, whether or not individual editors have specific beliefs about the individuals in question, or think the information is "suggested very strongly", or "have no reason to doubt" the claim. Perhaps you should read this discussion before commenting further:Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates/Archive 1#Peter Diamond 2. I'd be happy to include Diamond if the consensus were that reliable sources supported it. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the whole discussion. It seems to me you were the leader there, for including the hidden fact that Diamond is Jewish. I've also counted three or four community members who had supported you there, against one unreasonably stubborn opponent who wouldn't yield to the abundant sources you had all provided there. I don't understand your reversed position now. עמירם פאל (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't reversed my position; my position is always that material must be supported by reliable sources. There was indeed a single editor there who insisted, against all the evidence, that this material couldn't be included. Feel free to include this material as long as you source it to reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: No, we've discussed WP:OPENPARA before. Please review it carefully. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your interpretation to those rules. I think that Jewish origins in the case of Nobel laureates is quite relevant to the subject's notability. Nevertheless, I've moved the whole thing downwards. Please don't erase it again, as I tend to surrender and cease all my efforts here as I had done concerning the article - List of Jewish Nobel laureates. עמירם פאל (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see how you could disagree; considering how difficult it was to even find reliable secondary sources indicating he was Jewish at all, you'd have a very hard time making the argument that his Jewishness was relevant to his notability. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for allowing me to continue contributing here. I intend to add his Jewishness to List of Jewish Nobel laureates too, hoping we're now in agreement concerning the fact. Regarding the argument that his Jewishness was relevant to his notability, I'd claim that when the Jews get the Nobel prize at a rate of about a 100 times their proportions in the general population, the connection must be obvious, undisputed and deserves mentioning in Wiki at the top of every relevant article. עמירם פאל (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concealing the fact that he was Jewish