Talk:Dean Baker

message: Look, I get that either Mr. Baker or one of his assistants probably wrote this page, but the POV flag needs to be slapped on here. Jeez, have some intellectual self-respect and integrity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.62.16 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ? or a fan. --AaThinker (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: Two previous commentators are correct that the article is a paean. I'm a fan of Mr. Bakers, but he gains nothing from a cheerleading page. I've cleaned up some rhetorical and descriptive mess and will return to do more. BTW, I undid my own 1st edit after realizing that I'd eliminated a necessary footnote.
Tapered (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a major party congressional candidacy is certainly noteworthy, and chronology is not an unusual organizing principle. The part about the contras is less clear; was it an important motivating factor?  I just added some cites for one of Baker's major claims to fame.  As a longtime reader and admirer, I agree that there is a lot missing. Short articles often are unbalanced, as they grow longer things tend to get into their proper perspective. Of course you, and everyone else, can make changes you think appropriate.John Z (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "Obviously sabotage"?  First, see WP:AGF.  Second, see WP:COI.  And third, a review of the article history and editor contribs shows pretty clearly that that text was most likely written by either CEPR followers or employees, so if there was any "sabotage", Wiki's not to blame.  It's not unusual for obscure bios to get little attention, and if CEPR personnel edited them, Wiki isn't responsible for the alleged "sabotage".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: None of those accounts have edited Dean Baker; just one of them has made a couple of comments above. Rd232 talk 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning Cleanup

message: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those accounts have edited Dean Baker; just one of them has made a couple of comments above. Rd232 talk 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socks on CEPR articles 

message: The only known COI user active on this page has been User:Markweisbrot. He has made a couple of talkpage comments and not edited the article. I'm torn between simply removing a ludicrous and misplaced tag (it belongs in the article, not on the talk page), and waiting to see what Sandy comes up with to justify the tag's statement that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Cutting to the nub of it, Sandy might like to explain exactly what cleanup is required (though explaining how someone who hasn't edited the article is a "major contributor" ought to be fun). Rd232 talk 10:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since that response suggests no justification for the tag will be forthcoming, I'm removing it. Rd232 talk 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag 

message: Re this edit of mine: I'm very much against labelling people in general - in real life and on wiki - in terms they do not themselves agree with. Sourcing labels to a cherry-picked mainstream media source or two is bad enough; sourcing to fringe websites is out of the question for WP:BLPs. Rd232 talk 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate and significant political viewpoint, not "fringe" as you claim, and lewrockwell.com is one of the most respected free market capitalist site and is a RS. However I agree that the label "progressive economist" using this single source in a BLP is problematic. It can be described in this way - "the anarcho-capitalist website lewrockwell.com described Dean Baker as a progressive economist" in a reception/views section or something like that, not in the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how including this fringe view (which does not = illegitimate) is compatible with WP:UNDUE, especially in a BLP. It matters too that "progressive economist" is not a recognised term; so not only is it a label (I don't like labels people don't self-identify with) but it is a vague and pretty meaningless one. Rd232 talk 12:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite stubborn with your either wrongly held or politically motivated deliberately misleading idea that lewrockwell is 'fringe' website when it is clearly not. Although there is no established branch of economics called progressive economics, the term is used by other sources also  As I said previously, the source can be used with attribution in a view/reception section, not in the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have given neither evidence nor argument for lewrockwell not being fringe, so why should I change my mind? Calling it "anarcho-capitalist", as you do above, rather strengthens my view. And on the "progressive economics" point - this is not a term; it has no meaning. Not every conjunction of a noun and an adjective is a term; the adjective may be a distinct qualifier. Example: you could call me a "soulful Wikipedian" (well, somebody might :) ); this does not make "soulful Wikipedian" a meaningful term. Rd232 talk 10:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of evidence to prove that lewrockwell is a fringe source is on the party who dismiss it. Calling it "anarcho-capitalist", as you do above, rather strengthens my view - I failed to understand this argument. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anarcho-capitalist" is a term I've never previously heard of; hence, "fringe" in my view. Look, if you think it matters to resolve this question, try WP:RSN. PS the edit summary for the above comment is a personal attack (insofar as to most Americans Marxists are in a similar emotional space to paedophiles, and in context the edit summary is clearly calling me "Marxist"). Rd232 talk 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have never heard that the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at a focus, then the problem if with your ignorance, not with Kepler's law. BTW, I have not resorted to any name-calling, so don't make any false claim of personal attack. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant argumentativeness is a waste of both our times. If you wish to proceed with the content issue, do something concrete about that. Rd232 talk 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that identification of the ideology is useful, when it is reliably sourced, and that the overuse of the BLP card is wearing thin.  I'm not familiar with lewrockwell.com.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "At the time of removal the labels were not properly sourced." - I'm sorry, this is clearly a misleading statement. You removed the labels at 13:19, 17 February 2010, while the article Economic Policy Institute has references for the label "left leaning" since 07:37, 17 February 2010. Yes, the label "progressive" for Center for Economic and Policy Research was unsourced at the time you made the said edit, but not the label "left-leaning" for Economic Policy Institute. Then why you removed the labels for both institutes with a single edit summary "which is disputed in both daughter articles"? Please explain how the label was disputed in the article Economic Policy Institute at the time when you made this edit? Judging all these, I have to say you used a false edit summary only because you did not like calling a space a spade. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make something out of nothing. There was a ludicrously sourced label (of Baker, not of CEPR - you got that wrong) I removed  and at the same time, threw out a related unsourced label which I consider dismissive (I've never heard anyone self-describe as "left-leaning"). Shortly after, I looked in the EPI article and wasn't convinced by the sourcing for that label, so disputed it. Rd232 talk 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, your revert here makes it look like I removed "progressive" as a label from CEPR. I didn't - the label was previously attached to "macroeconomist", and your edit labelled "undo" actually introduces new material. Rd232 talk 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this resolved now with the sources given?  Rd232, could you please refrain from personalizing all disputes, and simply focus on the content?  Sourcing that content was not difficult; you edit far too frequently via reverting and playing the BLP card, rather than searching for sources, which only creates a lot of work for other editors and a lot of unnecessary edit warring.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no wish to personalise all disputes; and certainly in this thread it is you who has failed to focus on content. It is also you who have carried out a sustained harassment campaign against me; the above post is a continuation of that. "Playing the BLP card" is a clear claim of bad faith. Removing contentious unsourced BLP content pending discussion is not a whim or a tactic; please refer to WP:BLP and also the ongoing RFCs about unsourced BLPs and BLP content. Rd232 talk 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labelling 

message: I think the labels for the institutes where this person worked are relevant and informative, and helps the reader to understand the environment in which this person was involved. The labels are properly sourced in the respective articles. Please try to understand the political orientation of these institutes are confirmed by multiple reliable sources before playing the BLP card. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that identification of the ideology is useful, when it is reliably sourced, and that the overuse of the BLP card is wearing thin.  I'm not familiar with lewrockwell.com.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "At the time of removal the labels were not properly sourced." - I'm sorry, this is clearly a misleading statement. You removed the labels at 13:19, 17 February 2010, while the article Economic Policy Institute has references for the label "left leaning" since 07:37, 17 February 2010. Yes, the label "progressive" for Center for Economic and Policy Research was unsourced at the time you made the said edit, but not the label "left-leaning" for Economic Policy Institute. Then why you removed the labels for both institutes with a single edit summary "which is disputed in both daughter articles"? Please explain how the label was disputed in the article Economic Policy Institute at the time when you made this edit? Judging all these, I have to say you used a false edit summary only because you did not like calling a space a spade. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make something out of nothing. There was a ludicrously sourced label (of Baker, not of CEPR - you got that wrong) I removed  and at the same time, threw out a related unsourced label which I consider dismissive (I've never heard anyone self-describe as "left-leaning"). Shortly after, I looked in the EPI article and wasn't convinced by the sourcing for that label, so disputed it. Rd232 talk 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, your revert here makes it look like I removed "progressive" as a label from CEPR. I didn't - the label was previously attached to "macroeconomist", and your edit labelled "undo" actually introduces new material. Rd232 talk 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this resolved now with the sources given?  Rd232, could you please refrain from personalizing all disputes, and simply focus on the content?  Sourcing that content was not difficult; you edit far too frequently via reverting and playing the BLP card, rather than searching for sources, which only creates a lot of work for other editors and a lot of unnecessary edit warring.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no wish to personalise all disputes; and certainly in this thread it is you who has failed to focus on content. It is also you who have carried out a sustained harassment campaign against me; the above post is a continuation of that. "Playing the BLP card" is a clear claim of bad faith. Removing contentious unsourced BLP content pending discussion is not a whim or a tactic; please refer to WP:BLP and also the ongoing RFCs about unsourced BLPs and BLP content. Rd232 talk 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels for the institutes 

message: Here  is a link to Baker's newest book, False Prophets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarner (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: This line is currently under the section "Financial crisis of 2007–2009": "He also authors the weblog "Beat The Press" where he critiques economic reporting in the leading broadsheets, NPR and other mainstream news sources."  It seems to me this might be better placed under the "Career" section? -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was editing that even as you were posting :) - prompted by improving coverage of the Economic Reporting Review, which it clearly follows on from. Rd232 talk 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: * It Wasn't a Mortgage Recession After All: So Why Don't We Feel Better?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If Housing Watch wasn't a redlink I'd feel better about taking the time to discuss the WP:SYNTH involved. Note that the report the blog links to doesn't include the word "recession". Rd232 talk 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't taken time to look for other sources, but it's likely reported elsewhere.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this need to be worked in? 

message: I work at CEPR and I made a small correction. The Economic Reporting Review was not published by the New York Times or the Washington Post. It was on CEPR's website from 1996 to 2006.98.218.7.218 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Economic Reporting Review' correction 

message: What kind of economist is Dean Baker? CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Keynesian I would guess, but you'd need a good source to state that. Rd232 talk 08:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have said "accurate" going by his track record. Accurate economists are few and far between so that alone makes him notable. I doubt that he is "Keynesian" if by that you are using the modern American meaning of the term. Keynes himself wasn't "Keynesian" in that sense. Judging by his articles I would have said Post-Keynesian with some Georgist influence. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Nope. Clueless anonymous commentators also played their part. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Type of economist?

message: Which sources say so? Canadianism (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that. Reliable sources are needed on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living persons. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Keynesian?  

message: The article was not consistent with WP policies, which require citations to reliable sources, usually independent of the subject. One can cite sources like c.v.s for flavor, but not as the main sources for articles. 
In economics, the Journal of Economic Literature has covered books by Baker. Their reviews and similar high quality reliable sources should be used for this article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: How is that relevant to Dean Baker?  Why is it in the synopsis?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.183.6 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is absurd. I am reverting the introduction to the pre-smear version. EllenCT (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this economist notable for having been arrested? 

message: I am starting to try and clean up some of the citations in the article to make them machine readable using tight citation templates and linking to digitized resources -- and hopefully more it towards a more fact-based entry. I understand this article has been the subject of a lot of scrutiny so I hope that this work is seen as constructive and is taken in the good faith that it is intended. -- BrillLyle (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving citations of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dean Baker. 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/20150906094437/http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/MPRA_paper_15892.pdf to http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/MPRA_paper_15892.pdf
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) 05:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The text in this sentence relies on a blog source, which states that Baker placed THIRD, with the first-place winner gaining twice the number of votes.  The text is misleading, and puffery.  I have not corrected it, as it should be cited to a reliable source or removed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffery, non-reliable sourcing