Talk:David McWilliams (economist)

message: ===2007 Discussion===
At the age of 22 you were drafting EU legislation? Who do you think believes that?! I won't even go into the other crap that you spouted about yourself in this article. Hint: If you're goin to write your own Wiki page a)make it believable and b)don't make it so obvious that you wrote it yourself. I'm just glad that the latter part of the article has been added in giving a fuller view of your real personality. I'm just wondering when you are going to start writing the Wiki page for your oh so original and entertaining buzz words... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.248.9 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is ridiculous rubbish. Big claims and absolutely nothing to back them up...typical David McWilliams I suppose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgarvin (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the neutrality tag - completely incorrectly placed. The article simply needs more references; most of it seems copied and pasted from his own bio page. Schcambo (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll put this very plainly: a lot of what you have done is quite simply inserting your own POV to this article. There's a happy medium between info found on his own website and others' deprecation of such, and unfortunately we've swung from one pole to the other. Exemplary of this is your complete of all mention of him being an economist. That's just foolish. It's completely verifiable from a multitude of sources, and you're not helping your arguments by being so purposely ignorant. Anyway, I'll get back to you some more once I've taken a better look. Hopefully we can reach a happy compromise. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, this link doesn't mention the Maastricht Treaty. The line it supposedly referenced can be found here however, which is an acceptable source. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, stop for a moment and take some time out. This is completely unacceptable: "McWilliams is known for his nationalistic, eurosceptic views, and his strong defence of the common citizen". You're basing it on one interview. How is he "known" for that interview? Can you find me anything anywhere in a veriable source where someone discusses that interview? Is there any reaction to it anywhere? No. And until there is, leave it out. You're drawing sweeping conclusions from your own mind. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has already pointed this out to you on your talk page: do not use discussion forums, like politics.ie, as references. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also note: "as illustrated by the subsequent media references" is not a reference. --Schcamboaon scéal? 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Firstly, stop talking such BS. I'm not writing for David McWilliams, nor do I have any intention of doing so. A quick look at my contributions would have shown you I have far more experience as a user than you have.1. Now, tell me, why are you continually "referencing" this page? Have you looked at it recently? It does not mention the Celtic Tiger, let alone claiming he coined the term. It does not mention his being a director at UBS. That fact is now referenced in the article via the Irish Independent. It does not mention the Banque Nationale de Paris. It does not mention the recession, nor does it claim McWilliams first predicted it. Moreover, the page in question was published on 17 January, 2007. That's before the recession even began. Honestly, where are you getting this stuff?2. No, quotes shouldn't be in italics.3. You're not going to convince anyone he isn't an economist, so I'd suggest you stop trying. If a mechanic is unemployed or gets a job in a local business say, is he no longer a mechanic? Also, I didn't delete journalist. It's still there in the very first sentence of the entire article. See?4. There's an inherent difference between what it says in the article, that McWilliams was "helping to draft" E.U. legislation (which is referenced from a reliable source), and you saying above that I'm claiming he was "drafting" E.U. legislation.Please dude, get a life. You clearly hate the man, but it's not going in here unless you get some references to back it up (and I daresay you won't be able to find any such is the idiocy of some of the things you're making out to be "truth"). --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 1. I think by accusing me of writing for the man, you're the one getting a little personal.2. and 3. There is no longer anything in this article that is referenced exclusively from McWilliams' website. In fact the only two occasions his website is used is in reference to his views on wealth, and in reference to the Young Global Leaders thing. Everything else is referenced by reliable third-party websites. (And if you do find anything that's not, feel free to remove it.)4. You used that page (here, if you need proof) to reference four seperate claims which do not exist on that page.5. He is classed as an economist and journalist right now. Stick that in the infobox too if you want.6. Now, let's not go overboard in saying an anon and a single-purpose account carry much weight around here... I think that's a great idea though, but here's the problem: McWilliams' views are not widely discussed, anywhere. There's the one interview with Marian Finucane, but that's him saying what he thinks. It's totally arguable that he's a eurosceptic, and it's totally arguable that he wants the return of the pound. He doesn't specifically say either, and we can't say it for him, and we don't have some other reputable source(s) saying it either. That's the problem, and I don't really know how we can neutrally circumvent it at this stage. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The all-capitals style doesn't really help your cause. Now, are you seriously accusing New York University and the Irish Independent of being biased sources? McWilliams has some influence in this little world but I doubt that extends to controlling a university and a newspaper. McWilliams could quite well be in favour of a politically united Europe. Just because he has suggests we threaten to leave the E.M.U. doesn't mean he is against the E.U. And he doesn't even say that we should take up the pound. He said that usually countries in our position devalue, and that we can't do that quite obviously. He simply uses Britain as an example. He doesn't suggest we change to the pound. (In all fairness, that's as likely as us taking up the dollar.) Oh and do I care if he was really drafting legislation at 22, or to what extent he was doing so? Not in the slightest. If it's referenced, it stays. As with the term 'director'. If they employed him as one, then we list him as one, regardless of what exactly he was doing in the company or how many people did it. --Schcamboaon scéal? 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Autobio there David 

message: At the age of 22 you were drafting EU legislation? Who do you think believes that?! I won't even go into the other crap that you spouted about yourself in this article. Hint: If you're goin to write your own Wiki page a)make it believable and b)don't make it so obvious that you wrote it yourself. I'm just glad that the latter part of the article has been added in giving a fuller view of your real personality. I'm just wondering when you are going to start writing the Wiki page for your oh so original and entertaining buzz words... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.248.9 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is ridiculous rubbish. Big claims and absolutely nothing to back them up...typical David McWilliams I suppose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgarvin (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the neutrality tag - completely incorrectly placed. The article simply needs more references; most of it seems copied and pasted from his own bio page. Schcambo (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 Discussion

message: The article is still incredible... there are whole self serving passsages that are STILL intact from http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/about   SO 1) When you see this, DELETE them,   2)   Don't say we just need more refs   3) Don't remove the neutrality tag.  Anyway by the time I'm finished with this evening, should be better.    cckkab (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put this very plainly: a lot of what you have done is quite simply inserting your own POV to this article. There's a happy medium between info found on his own website and others' deprecation of such, and unfortunately we've swung from one pole to the other. Exemplary of this is your complete of all mention of him being an economist. That's just foolish. It's completely verifiable from a multitude of sources, and you're not helping your arguments by being so purposely ignorant. Anyway, I'll get back to you some more once I've taken a better look. Hopefully we can reach a happy compromise. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, this link doesn't mention the Maastricht Treaty. The line it supposedly referenced can be found here however, which is an acceptable source. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, stop for a moment and take some time out. This is completely unacceptable: "McWilliams is known for his nationalistic, eurosceptic views, and his strong defence of the common citizen". You're basing it on one interview. How is he "known" for that interview? Can you find me anything anywhere in a veriable source where someone discusses that interview? Is there any reaction to it anywhere? No. And until there is, leave it out. You're drawing sweeping conclusions from your own mind. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has already pointed this out to you on your talk page: do not use discussion forums, like politics.ie, as references. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also note: "as illustrated by the subsequent media references" is not a reference. --Schcamboaon scéal? 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Firstly, stop talking such BS. I'm not writing for David McWilliams, nor do I have any intention of doing so. A quick look at my contributions would have shown you I have far more experience as a user than you have.1. Now, tell me, why are you continually "referencing" this page? Have you looked at it recently? It does not mention the Celtic Tiger, let alone claiming he coined the term. It does not mention his being a director at UBS. That fact is now referenced in the article via the Irish Independent. It does not mention the Banque Nationale de Paris. It does not mention the recession, nor does it claim McWilliams first predicted it. Moreover, the page in question was published on 17 January, 2007. That's before the recession even began. Honestly, where are you getting this stuff?2. No, quotes shouldn't be in italics.3. You're not going to convince anyone he isn't an economist, so I'd suggest you stop trying. If a mechanic is unemployed or gets a job in a local business say, is he no longer a mechanic? Also, I didn't delete journalist. It's still there in the very first sentence of the entire article. See?4. There's an inherent difference between what it says in the article, that McWilliams was "helping to draft" E.U. legislation (which is referenced from a reliable source), and you saying above that I'm claiming he was "drafting" E.U. legislation.Please dude, get a life. You clearly hate the man, but it's not going in here unless you get some references to back it up (and I daresay you won't be able to find any such is the idiocy of some of the things you're making out to be "truth"). --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 1. I think by accusing me of writing for the man, you're the one getting a little personal.2. and 3. There is no longer anything in this article that is referenced exclusively from McWilliams' website. In fact the only two occasions his website is used is in reference to his views on wealth, and in reference to the Young Global Leaders thing. Everything else is referenced by reliable third-party websites. (And if you do find anything that's not, feel free to remove it.)4. You used that page (here, if you need proof) to reference four seperate claims which do not exist on that page.5. He is classed as an economist and journalist right now. Stick that in the infobox too if you want.6. Now, let's not go overboard in saying an anon and a single-purpose account carry much weight around here... I think that's a great idea though, but here's the problem: McWilliams' views are not widely discussed, anywhere. There's the one interview with Marian Finucane, but that's him saying what he thinks. It's totally arguable that he's a eurosceptic, and it's totally arguable that he wants the return of the pound. He doesn't specifically say either, and we can't say it for him, and we don't have some other reputable source(s) saying it either. That's the problem, and I don't really know how we can neutrally circumvent it at this stage. --Schcamboaon scéal? 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The all-capitals style doesn't really help your cause. Now, are you seriously accusing New York University and the Irish Independent of being biased sources? McWilliams has some influence in this little world but I doubt that extends to controlling a university and a newspaper. McWilliams could quite well be in favour of a politically united Europe. Just because he has suggests we threaten to leave the E.M.U. doesn't mean he is against the E.U. And he doesn't even say that we should take up the pound. He said that usually countries in our position devalue, and that we can't do that quite obviously. He simply uses Britain as an example. He doesn't suggest we change to the pound. (In all fairness, that's as likely as us taking up the dollar.) Oh and do I care if he was really drafting legislation at 22, or to what extent he was doing so? Not in the slightest. If it's referenced, it stays. As with the term 'director'. If they employed him as one, then we list him as one, regardless of what exactly he was doing in the company or how many people did it. --Schcamboaon scéal? 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Discussion

message: To what school of economic thought does McWilliams belong? It would probably be worth a mention. 78.16.220.150 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School of thought 

message: Some of the article is in bad need of editing to make it more encyclopedic:
*The word Kilkenomics is linked to the Kilkenomics website with a reference in the footnotes to the same page. WP:RS requires reliable third-party resources.
*There is a similar problem with the mention of the Dalkey Book Festival - the main body of the text links to the festival web site and the reference cited is a link to the same site! This suggests that these edits were made by someone unfamiliar with proper wikipedia citations.
*The sentence These ideas are explored extensively in “The Good Room” has a link to the book on Amazon.com as a reference. This looks like WP:REFSPAM.
*The passage "What I am saying is, that in Europe, if Ireland continues hurtling down this road...idea that France and Germany can just hang us out to dry – as has been the talk the past few days – should not be taken lying down" didn't appear to be a quote at first look - there are no quotes around it. The last sentence looks like an assertion with a relative reference to time. It it only obviously a quote if the reader looks back to the second sentence of the paragraph. This second sentence has two references after "reported in the international press," - they are currently numbered 24 and 25, but they look like they refer to the same article.(One has the author, publisher and article name, the other has a link.)
*The passage "He maintained that the bank guarantee should have been rescinded...our Government didn't so much lend the State's credibility to the banks as give it to them unconditionally." is another passage that isn't properly quoted. This time the problem with the reference is that it's just a literal string: "[4]". It will be difficult to check, as the current link of that number runs a search for David McWilliams on the Sunday Business Post site.
*The current number three link links to the front page of the Independent, so it's not clear what article was being referenced in the first place.
*The current reference number six link is to the Wikipedia article on the Celtic Tiger. Why it is being cited rather than used as a link to the notion of Celtic Tiger is a puzzle, but it is consistent with the poor references in the rest of the article.
*Ditto the referene number eighteen about the Global Irish Economic Forum.
*The current reference numbers seven, nine, nineteen and twenty-one are all links to YouTube. These should be checked to make sure they follow WP:YOUTUBE.
*The current reference numbers one(doesn't provide a working link), ten, fifteen, twenty-seven and twenty-eight link to David McWilliams official website. WP:ELOFFICIAL allows links to an official website connected to the subject, but WP:ELMINOFFICIAL suggests to keep the number of links to a minimum. There may also be an issue of not enough reliable third-party sources.
The overall impression is that the article has been edited with more enthusiasm than care; this should be overhauled to bring it more into line with Wikipedia policies. This is especially so as this is covered by WP:BLP. Autarch (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable references 

message: *The section Political and economic views starts with a paragraph that claims the subject very few to accurately predict it would all end in a monumental crash with a link to a Youtube video. Said video shows him on an RTE show in 2003 predicting the crash, but does not show whether he was one of "few" economists to do so.
*The site Rise.global is cited - is it WP:RS?
Autarch (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More questionable references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on David McWilliams (economist). 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/20150618162633/http://www.weforum.org/pdf/YGL/list07.pdf to http://www.weforum.org/pdf/YGL/list07.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David McWilliams (economist). 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/20131105010156/http://www.irishtheatremagazine.ie/Reviews/Current/Outsiders to http://www.irishtheatremagazine.ie/Reviews/Current/Outsiders
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) 19:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I've done a bit of repair work on this article (it was almost worshipful before) and would welcome your advice on whether the "neutrality is disputed" and "fan's point of view" warnings can now be removed.
Taibhseoir Taibhseoir (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the article is now more carefully phrased to say McWilliams is credited with coining the term "Celtic Tiger", but there is mo mention that it was coined in 1994 by Kevin Gardiner. See here, here, here, here and here. This reference points out that McWilliams conceded that he wasn't the coiner of the term. Given there are reliable sources confirming that Gardiner coined the term, shouldn't the article at least mention that? Autarch (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Neutrality Tag 

message: This article has been plagued by edits from anonymous users who are suspiciously sympathetic to McWilliams. The neutrality of this article has been disputed for years and bone fide attempts to bring it up to standard have been thwarted repeatedly. Is it time to make this semi-protected? Taibhseoir (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected status required