Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:That said, do we have any way we can choose which criticisms of the book we should cite ? I suppose that it is not our job to choose which criticisms are interesting and which aren't, and so we should primarily take into account the influence of the critic. Does it mean we need to cite just because it was published in a widely read newspaper ? --] (]) 20:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:That said, do we have any way we can choose which criticisms of the book we should cite ? I suppose that it is not our job to choose which criticisms are interesting and which aren't, and so we should primarily take into account the influence of the critic. Does it mean we need to cite just because it was published in a widely read newspaper ? --] (]) 20:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::I agree that the section would be more appropriate in the article about the book. And it is hardly useful to cite a criticism of "Pour une révolution fiscale" if its contents are not described in this article. My preference would be to remove the criticism section in this article unless someone shows that the cited reception here offers something more substantial than a (one-sided) selection of book reviews.--<span style="color:blue">Sewonathy</span> 10:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::I agree that the section would be more appropriate in the article about the book. And it is hardly useful to cite a criticism of "Pour une révolution fiscale" if its contents are not described in this article. My preference would be to remove the criticism section in this article unless someone shows that the cited reception here offers something more substantial than a (one-sided) selection of book reviews.--<span style="color:blue">Sewonathy</span> 10:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::How I like all those people who are so quick to make without ever showing up on the talk page. By the way, I still think Philippe Nemo's criticism has no place here unless the work to which his criticism refers is actually described in the article.--<span style="color:blue">Sewonathy</span> 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
== "Fabrication of data" ==
== "Fabrication of data" ==
Revision as of 07:31, 9 May 2014
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
The infobox says that the "influences" of Piketty were "John Maynard Keynes, Anthony Atkinson, Roy Harrod, Nicholas Kaldor, Franco Modigliani, Luigi Pasinetti, Robert Solow, Robert Barro, Simon Kuznets". That is unsourced. I have read a substantial part of Piketty's work but I cannot guess what in it is likely to have been influenced by Franco Mogigliani or Robert Barro, or even Keynes. The only one that is often cited by Piketty is Kuznets (though mostly because Piketty refutes Kuznet's thesis, so adding that without any explanation in an "influences" section is rather misleading. Absent more details, I think we should simply remove this section.
"According to a study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty, the top 1 percent of earners have captured more of the income gains under Obama than under George W. Bush". The source given is just a political rant by the Cato Institute. Citing the paper itself would sound more interesting, but in the context of this article, the quoted sentence would make sense only if Piketty and Saez say that the differences between the Bush years and the Obama years can be explained by national policies (and I doubt very much that they do). Does anyone have more info or can I just remove that ? --Superzoulou (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, school : keynesian (or "neo-keynesian") does not appear to make any sense to me. He may believe that keynesian ideas are right, but this is rather orthogonal to his research. I just cannot see what a "keynesian school" can mean in his field of work. --Superzoulou (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Citations and original research
Foremost, the "criticism" section is heavily cited. I am not sure what the issue here is about original research. Please specify more clearly. Second, the second paragraph of the intro is a restatement of the criticism section. Citations here are redundant, and the reader should direct his or her attention to the body of the article. Archivingcontext (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it, it's "cited" but the sources which are "cited" were being misrepresented. For example or the Tyler Cowen piece. The rest was pure original research cited to works which do not mention Piketty and which were in fact published before his book came out.
The so-called "criticism section" is in fact mostly a cherry-picked excerpt from the reception section of the article about the book. I'd propose to either expand this into a broader reception section here as well (perhaps by copying the quotes from Will Hutton and Paul Krugman into this article) or to confine all reception dealing with the book to the existing article about the book. --Sewonathy 17:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that most of the "criticism" section is about reception section, I'd think it would be more appropriate there. There is paragraph about an article criticizing Pour une révolution fiscale, but as Pour une révolution fiscale is barely mentionned in the article, I do not think it is worth mentionning its criticisms. And if it is, we should certainly look for something more consequential than the cited criticism.
That said, do we have any way we can choose which criticisms of the book we should cite ? I suppose that it is not our job to choose which criticisms are interesting and which aren't, and so we should primarily take into account the influence of the critic. Does it mean we need to cite just because it was published in a widely read newspaper ? --Superzoulou (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the section would be more appropriate in the article about the book. And it is hardly useful to cite a criticism of "Pour une révolution fiscale" if its contents are not described in this article. My preference would be to remove the criticism section in this article unless someone shows that the cited reception here offers something more substantial than a (one-sided) selection of book reviews.--Sewonathy 10:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
How I like all those people who are so quick to make contentious reverts without ever showing up on the talk page. By the way, I still think Philippe Nemo's criticism has no place here unless the work to which his criticism refers is actually described in the article.--Sewonathy 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"Fabrication of data"
Not that it really matters but just a note on the "fabrication of data" charge added by an IP, in case the matter should come up again. The cited article has a rather aggressive tone but what it essentiallly says is that a graph is a book is misleading in that it only includes that working population between 18 and 65 rather than the whole population. This is arguably true -even though the caption of the graph is perfectly explicit- but that sounds rather ridiculous to mention that in this article (and of course that doesn't qualify as "fabrication of data"). --Superzoulou (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
According to what I could find out Bernard Zimmern is just a businessman. For such a fundamental charge to be cited, the critic should be at least a widely respected university scholar.--Sewonathy 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
