Talk:Mark Weisbrot

Focus of Weisbrot publications

It is not hard to see where Weisbrot's work and publications are focused. Considering that Venezuela is where his work is consistently focused, we would expect to see more discussion of his work in that area on his page. Note that Scorecard is quite far down the list, as are a number of other items self-sourced on this page. DenizenGene, if you would like to see more coverage of other areas of his work, please provide independent, third-party, reliable sources covering his work in other areas. There is plenty of coverage of Venezuela because that is where his work has been focused and cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended content SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Mark Weisbrot" ghits overall Number Topic 259,000 Venezuela 217,000 Cuba 212,000 Chavez 200,000 Argentina 146,000 Brazil 92,000 IMF 84,200 Globalization 67,200 Global economy 64,100 Social Security 57,800 Uruguay 10,400 Scorecard "Mark Weisbrot" ghits site:huffingtonpost.com Number Topic 427 Venezuela 323 IMF 265 Brazil 247 Argentina 226 Cuba 210 Chavez 148 Globalization 109 Global economy 106 Social Security 41 Uruguay '"Mark Weisbrot" ghits site:thenation.com Number Topic 143 Venezuela 103 IMF 96 Brazil 82 Chavez 55 Cuba 49 Globalization 27 Global economy 26 Argentina 23 Social Security "Mark Weisbrot" ghits site:thehill.com Number Topic 501 Venezuela 30 Social security 23 Brazil 14 Argentina 12 IMF 6 Chavez "Mark Weisbrot" ghits site:theguardian.com Number Topic 563 IMF 362 Brazil 347 Chavez 316 Venezuela 308 Argentina 271 Global economy 194 Cuba 67 Globalization 65 Uruguay

Discussion of focus

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)

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)

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) 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

71.178.11.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 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)

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)

Request for comment on works and publications

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for Option 2 on the basis of WP:NOT and Option 1 being too long, though some supporting option 2 indicated that a few selected articles could be appropiate Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the "Works and publications" section be Option 1 or Option 2?

Option 1:

Selected articles

• Baker, Dean; Weisbrot, Mark (December 1994). "The Logic of Contested Exchange". Journal of Economic Issues. 28 (4): 1091–1114. doi:10.1080/00213624.1994.11505613. JSTOR 4226888.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (3 January 1997). "Structural Adjustment in Haiti". Monthly Review. 48 (8): 25. doi:10.14452/mr-048-08-1997-01_3.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (May 2000). "Globalization on the Ropes". Harper's Magazine.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (12 January 2003). "A Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela". The Washington Post.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark; Baker, Dean; Rosnick, David (September 2006). "The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress" (PDF). DESA Working Paper No. 31. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (2007). "Ten Years After: The Lasting Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis". In Muchhala, Bhumika (ed.). Ten Years After: Revisiting the Asian Financial Crisis (PDF). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Asia Program. pp. 105–118. ISBN 978-1-933-54924-8. OCLC 837049395.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (30 October 2007). "How Argentina jump-started its economy". Los Angeles Times.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (April 2008). "How Not to Attack An Economist (and An Economy): Getting the Numbers Right" (PDF). Center for Economic and Policy Research.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark; Ray, Rebecca; Johnston, Jake; Cordero, Jose Antonio; Montecino, Juan Antonio (October 2009). "IMF‐Supported Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty‐One Borrowing Countries" (PDF). Center for Economic and Policy Research.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (1 October 2010). "Ecuador's Correa haunted by Honduras". The Guardian.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (9 May 2011). "Why Greece Should Say No to the Euro". The New York Times.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark; Ray, Rebecca (June 2011). "The Scorecard on Development: 1960-2010: Closing the Gap?" (PDF). DESA Working Paper No. 106. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (9 October 2012). "Why Chávez Was Re-elected". The New York Times.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (12 November 2012). "The United Nations must cure Haiti of the cholera epidemic it caused". The Guardian.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (7 November 2013). "Sorry, Venezuela haters: this economy is not the Greece of Latin America". The Guardian.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (3 May 2014). "The world has nothing to fear from the US losing power". The Guardian.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (22 June 2014). "The Debt Vultures' Fell Swoop". The New York Times.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark; Johnston, Jake; Lefebvre, Stephan (September 2014). "The Brazilian Economy in Transition: Macroeconomic Policy, Labor and Inequality" (PDF). Center for Economic and Policy Research.
  
• Weisbrot, Alan (7 August 2015). "Opinion: Brazil needs to reverse course to revive economy". Al Jazeera English.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (20 February 2016). "4 Steps To Fix Venezuela's Economy". Fortune.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (29 August 2016). "Will the IMF Become Irrelevant Before It Changes?". The Nation.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (20 April 2017). "Opinion: Could a Leftist Bring Growth Back to France?". The New York Times.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (23 January 2018). “Brazil’s Democracy Pushed into the Abyss”. The New York Times.
  

Books

• Weisbrot, Mark Alan (1993). Ideology and Method in the History of Development Economics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. OCLC 68796746. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
  
• Baker, Dean; Weisbrot, Mark (1999). Social Security: The Phony Crisis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-03544-4. OCLC 41090883.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (2015). Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-17018-4. OCLC 928088357.

Option 2:

Books

• Weisbrot, Mark Alan (1993). Ideology and Method in the History of Development Economics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. OCLC 68796746. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
  
• Baker, Dean; Weisbrot, Mark (1999). Social Security: The Phony Crisis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-03544-4. OCLC 41090883.
  
• Weisbrot, Mark (2015). Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-17018-4. OCLC 928088357.

18:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Option 3

This option was added by DenizenGene at 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Selected articles

• Baker, Dean; Weisbrot, Mark (December 1994). "The Logic of Contested Exchange". Journal of Economic Issues. 28 (4): 1091–1114. doi:10.1080/00213624.1994.11505613. JSTOR 4226888.
• Weisbrot, Mark; Baker, Dean; Rosnick, David (September 2006). "The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress" (PDF). DESA Working Paper No. 31. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
• Weisbrot, Mark (2007). "Ten Years After: The Lasting Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis". In Muchhala, Bhumika (ed.). Ten Years After: Revisiting the Asian Financial Crisis (PDF). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Asia Program. pp. 105–118. ISBN 978-1-933-54924-8. OCLC 837049395.
• Weisbrot, Mark (April 2008). "How Not to Attack An Economist (and An Economy): Getting the Numbers Right" (PDF). Center for Economic and Policy Research.
• Weisbrot, Mark; Ray, Rebecca; Johnston, Jake; Cordero, Jose Antonio; Montecino, Juan Antonio (October 2009). "IMF‐Supported Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty‐One Borrowing Countries" (PDF). Center for Economic and Policy Research.
• Weisbrot, Mark; Ray, Rebecca (June 2011). "The Scorecard on Development: 1960-2010: Closing the Gap?" (PDF). DESA Working Paper No. 106. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Books

• Weisbrot, Mark Alan (1993). Ideology and Method in the History of Development Economics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. OCLC 68796746. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
• Baker, Dean; Weisbrot, Mark (1999). Social Security: The Phony Crisis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-03544-4. OCLC 41090883.
• Weisbrot, Mark (2015). Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-17018-4. OCLC 928088357.

Discussion below

• Option 2, per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhost, a repository of links, or a means of promotion. Mr. Weisbrot's publications can be hosted on his own company's website,[1] listing his books here. An RFC is needed to resolve this because this issue has persisted here for at least eight years, and has involved meatpuppetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• A pared Option 3 has been proposed. Reiterating support for Option 2 and further pruning. Weisbrot's company, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), has a page which links to Weisbrot's writing; Wikipedia need not host an extensive list.[2] Looking at Option 3, the "How not to attack ... " article is already listed as a source in the article. Scorecard on Development has CEPR co-authorship and should be covered at the CEPR article. Ditto for "Logic of contested exchange". What is the inclusion criteria for this list? Why are CEPR publications included in Weisbrot article when CEPR has an article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• What is the criteria for choosing what to list? Of the six you list above, one is already used as a source in the article, several of them are not very important papers judging by how often google scholar reports they are cited by others, and those that are cited more often are CEPR papers that can be listed on the CEPR page. Could you please define how you are choosing what to list, so we won't have to keep re-visiting this topic, and explain why they should be listed here and not at CEPR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Artists often have their discographies on their own sites and academics' university sites often host their bibliographies. As pages of these variety often have bibliographies/discographies, I think it is reasonable to apply the same model here. A selected bibliography should provide a reader an introduction and overview of an author's work, so I think that should be the aim/criteria. In order to do this, I think there would need to be the addition of a few of Weisbrot's papers about country specific economies. He seems to have done a few of these about European countries and some Latin America countries, but that part of his academic work is not represented here.

I agree that the Scorecard series of papers should be covered here and on the CEPR page as it seems to be both one of Weisbrot's more significant publications (with its multiple publications by the United Nations) and an important publication for the Center as it has involved several of their staff over the past decade. I think it would be best to avoid using citations and citations reported by a search engine as a criteria because a) a majority of academic papers are never officially cited b) Google scholar in my experience isn't the most reliable source especially for academic work published outside major journals c) Weisbrot's academic work seems to be cited more typically by media sources (e.g. papers and magazines) rather than academic journals. Since Weisbrot founded the CEPR, it would make sense that the organization would publish much of his work. I don't think there's a need to create a strong dichotomy between the organization and the person when it comes to work published. For example, the leader singer of a rock band's article would likely include songs she sung and albums she recorded with that band. Those songs and albums would also appear on the band's page. -DenizenGene (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cited by No. Article Authorship 19 The logic of contested exchange Baker and Weisbrot (Center for Economic and Policy Research-- CEPR) 80 The scorecard on development: 25 years of diminished progress Weisbrot and Baker (CEPR) 55 Ten Years After: The Lasting Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis Weisbrot (CEPR) 84 IMF-supported macroeconomic policies and the world recession: a look at forty-one borrowing countries CEPR 17 The Scorecard on Development: 1960-2010: Closing the Gap? Weisbrot, CEPR, self-cited in article 7 How Not to Attack An Economist (and An Economy): Getting the Numbers Right Cited by 7, already linked in the article

• Per WP:OSE Option 1. Articles of American Economists uniformly have selected bibliographies. They are essential to the article if it is to provide an accurate, reliable picture of subject. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tobin, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz -DenizenGene (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 or pare the "selected" pubs down from 23 to about 3. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  I think paring is a good idea, Dick. I removed all news citations, leaving only selected published academic work. What do you think of the look of the new list? Thanks for the idea. -DenizenGene (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  Do not alter talk page posts by other editors, and please avoid changing an in-progress RFC. I have added an Option 3 with your new suggested list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. I wasn't sure of the protocol for updating options. Thanks for adding Option 3. -DenizenGene (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 article lists are normally included for academics in the same way that discographys are permitted for musicians/singers, and 23 entries is not particularly long, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Option 1 is blatant self promotion - Just because he's a Columnist doesn't mean we should include every piece he's wrote - I could perhaps agree that a few would be fine but even then it could be seen as favouritism in some respects, Better off having just the books as that way there's arguement with what piece should and shouldn't be there. –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 - summoned by bot. I don't think it's a good idea to publish links of articles. It sets a bad precedent, and is unsustainable. There are LA Times and NY Times columnists that produce two articles a week - it could get unwieldy. Instead, put a link in the external links section (which I just did) to find his articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 - A summary of most notable works is sufficient (could include books and articles). If all the articles and works are notable enough a separate bibliography article could be created. For an example see Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2: no need to list each and every article; books are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2 I came here after a bot request. I thought there was a guideline about this somewhere but I do not see information about counts in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works or elsewhere. This issue has come up 1000s of times and I know it resolves to be a short list. The longer term wiki solution to this will be that anyone can upload a full publication history, including books, academic papers, news articles, and anything else, to Wikidata. Some guidance for this is at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData. Once there are enough citations in Wikidata then probably Wikipedia articles will contain links to lists of publications as entered in Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 It is rather interesting to read the rationale being provided for Option Dos. It would appear, on the surface, that some of these editors would prefer a minimalist approach which is rather curious considering that the purpose of the Mighty Wik is to retain and spread knowledge about the subject at hand. That being the case, why would we not want to provide access to the subject's writings and opinions? Perhaps because some of Whitebread's writings on current events have been borne to be, well, not as accurate as he may have prophesized? Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hyperinflation

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)

Over-reliance on self-sourcing

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)

References

birth year/age

What's with the <!--Please do not display age per BLP--> 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)