Talk:Dean Baker

older entries
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)
 * ? or a fan. --AaThinker (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Beginning Cleanup
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)

Another quick excision. No longer a paean or POV article.

Tapered (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't write that comment below; I showed the page to a friend and she typed in her reaction, not knowing that my account was logged in. Sorry about that, I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion.Markweisbrot (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dean Baker has written numerous books (including award-winning books) and articles and has been cited thousands of times in major media outlets for his economic research. Why is the first and most prominent paragraph on his wikipedia page about something he did in graduate school a quarter century ago? This is obviously sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markweisbrot (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * "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".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks on CEPR articles
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

First economist
I find it hard to understand what is being asked for and why. As I stated in the edit summaries, I added two independent sources for the claim that he was the first economist... I believe the proper place for the refs is as usual at the end of the sentence, because the refs support the rest of the sentence too. The alternative seems to me to be pointless and harder to read repetition of references; the use of a tag here is peculiar. If someone wants a different formatting of the given references, they should do it themselves.John Z (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that you understand our sourcing requirements; extraordinary claims require strong citation, and you've tacked three sources which aren't sufficient to back such a claim on to the end of the sentence, which obfuscates the fact that an extraordinary claim should be cited where it occurs, and in this case, is not cited at all. Baker (self) cannot make the claim that he was first to do X-- that is self.  The other source is a site that anyone can write for, open submissions, and the other appears to have no editorial oversight.  A statement of this type needs to be backed by a reliable economic source, not self, not self-submitted sites.  There are similar problems in the rest of this article, but perhaps you can work on understanding Wiki referencing via this one claim first.  It needs an independent, reliable source adequate to back such an extraordinary claim (that he was first), and the "first" is what needs to be cited, not the entire sentence.  Citations belong with the text they're citing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not such an extraordinary claim, but a pretty well known one; don't think there is any other contender. Google on "first economist" "housing bubble" and see what turns up. That's how I got the Australian sources.  Where in a sentence a claim should be cited is a matter of style, again as these sources support the whole sentence, putting them in the middle of this not very long sentence and also at the end is rather unusual, as is putting a  tag in the middle of a sentence when the sources are there already at the end. Baker is not really being used to make the claim, but to explain it - that source, which was already in the article, was his very early pricking of the bubble.  I am very easygoing about matters of style, if you prefer a different style, why not just edit the article?
 * I can't discern which criticism is supposed to apply to which of the Australian periodicals used as a source, because neither description fits them in any way I can see. They are both articles from dead tree sources, which I provided web links to, and for which I provided internal links to the appropriate wikipedia articles on these periodicals.  The Monthly is a mainstream Australian magazine.  The support for the claim comes from the editorial description by Robert Manne of Baker, one of a group of very eminent intellectuals in a symposium in The Monthly discussing a recent essay they had published by Kevin Rudd, the current Prime Minister of Australia.  Progress Magazine has been published since 1904. The current main page for the mag makes it clear that this is a print article from it: here or here, and there is a slow-loading pdf of the issue here; I thought the HTML preferable.John Z (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a "pretty well known" claim, there should be a mainstream source backing it up (Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Financial Times, New York Times, maybe even Time or Newsweek-- the bubble was well covered in the financial literature). The marginal Australian sources are not sufficient for such a grandiose claim.  And no, parking dubious citations at the end of a sentence for a specific claim mid-sentence is not good or even common practice.  Please find a mainstream financial source to back up such a claim, or reword the text to reflect what can be cited from mainstream sources or attributed to Baker's own opinions of himself.  Also, please see above and be aware of the sock activity across all of these articles.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A periodical, The Monthly, that publishes an essay by a sitting PM, and has a symposium with very famous intellectuals discussing it is not marginal or dubious and is a completely mainstream RS, and completely sufficient to support this fact, which apparently no one has ever disputed outside this talk page. There are more than six mainstream RS's on financial matters out there. There may be some other sources, even the ones you list, but disputing this one is hardly serious. The bubble was quite badly covered in the financial literature when it was going on. That's the case with all bubbles until they burst - it's essential to making them bubbles.  It is not a terribly grandiose claim, he was just the first one to loudly say that an emperor had no clothes.
 * You are not correct about citing practice and rules, see CITE. Are you really saying that individual clauses of a sentences must be cited, with the same cites that must appear at the end also, because they support the rest of the sentence too? Sentences that look like Blah blah blah[1][2], blah blah blah[1][2][3], blah blah.[1][2] are much less common than Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah.[1][2][3], here and in academic and any other contexts.John Z (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "First" is what you need to cite, it still hasn't been cited to independent mainstream reliable sources, and it needs to be cited where the claim occurs, not as part of a larger sentence. Please refrain from removing tags until the issue is settled.  One Australian person's opinion, in a source that anyone can write for with little editorial oversight, does not make this a valid claim; extraordinary claims need strong sources. The guideline page you linked specifically supports my statement about inline citations:  "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the cite at the end of the clause, which makes a claim which can be true or false; the position the cn tag is at is strange, as it is attached to a  meaningless fragment "Baker was among the first". I'll put the cite there though, OK?  Would have put it there if I understood that is what you wanted.  It emphatically has been cited to an "independent mainstream reliable source"- The Monthly. Characterization of  Robert Manne as "one Australian person's opinion" and The Monthly as "a source that anyone can write for with little editorial oversight" is amazing. Are Kevin Rudd or Eric Hobsbawm just anyone too?
 * A more complete quote from CITE   is "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient."  This is not contentious material, let alone particularly contentious, as it has afaik never been disputed anywhere but here, and has been supported by one very reliable source, The Monthly.John Z (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's contentious and overarching; please cite it to a mainstream, reliable, economic source. If it's so true, it should be documented, not by an obscure Australian source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A source used by a sitting prime minister and someone who has been called "arguably our greatest living historian — not only Britain's, but the world's" are by that fact not obscure. The australian sources (and others) say "the first" ; our article weakens this to "one of the first".  A problem is that Baker is quite well known, with thousands of gnews hits; "dean baker" "housing bubble" gets 417 gnews hits.  I do not have the time to slog through that many.  This 2002 NYT story calls him "one of the bubble spotters", about what the article says. Demanding another source about a noncontentious, already quite well-sourced fact is not based in any wikpedia policy or practice; do you really want to get outside input on this?John Z (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT is a far better source, and the text it supports would be better. The fact is not "already quite well-sourced". "One of the bubble spotters" would do it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So can we use this for the requested "citation needed" after "Baker was among the first economists"? -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ... Using the NYT source (and adjust the text to match what the NYT says) would resolve this. In all (or most) cases, secondary, independent sources are preferable.  I haven't checked the article recently, maybe this has already been done, if not, I don't know why not (noting that this was raised a week ago). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source is this, from the NEA's journal Thought & Action which says "A second perspective seeks to identify financial bubbles—the peculiar indicia of an imminent crash. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington is the pre-eminent practitioner of this craft, with a clear claim to having seen the housing bubble when academic economists largely could not." That article is a rejoinder to Paul Krugman's column here, which identifies Robert Shiller as an early bubble spotter, but looking at our article on Shiller, and his work that Baker based his work on, as related here, makes it clear that Shiller was much more cautious, doubted a recessionary consequence, and had a different focus, wealth effects rather than bubbles.John Z (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case there is little point seeking out references which state that Dean Baker was first, when it is possible to find other references for other economists, such as Fred Foldvary or Mason Gaffney, who made predictions for the same recession at an earlier date than he did. As far as I am aware the first economist to predict the 2007/2008 crisis was Fred Harrison who predicted both the 1990 housing crash in his 1983 book, The Power in the Land and the 2007 one in 1997. This beats out Dean Baker by 5 years. Fred Harrison may have been the first economist to make the prediction but who knows. There may have been someone even before him. His Wikipedia article satisfies itself with the 1997 date without worrying about whether he was first or not. I recommend that the Dean Baker article does the same. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 01:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

COI tag
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)
 * I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that response suggests no justification for the tag will be forthcoming, I'm removing it. Rd232 talk 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Labelling
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Labels for the institutes
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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time of removal the labels were not properly sourced. If they are properly sourced in daughter articles, it doesn't need sourcing here as well - especially not with half a dozen sources in a single footnote (which always looks a bit "she doth protest too much", where it isn't WP:SYNTHy). I'll leave the footnote for now because at least one (book review) may be more relevant for this page and usable beyond labelling.

Sandy, please do not use misleading edit summaries, as you did here. "Rd232, stop playing the BLP card where it doesn't apply, and stop reverting clearly sourcable text, add sources used at Center for Economic and Policy Research)". At the time the label was removed the term was unsourced in CEPR; and BLP clearly requires removal of contentious unsourced material. (You might want to explain how BLP doesn't apply to this article.) In addition, edit summaries should summarise/explain the edit, and not address other editors. Rd232 talk 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

I believe we should follow apparent majority opinion and refer to CEPR as a liberal, rather than progressive, think tank. Frequency analyses:


 * (41) / 44 / 6 / 1 / 0 Total = 92
 * (11) /  7 / 0 / 0 / 0 Total = 18

Another search configuration: -- JN 466  16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Center for Economic and Policy Research" "liberal think tank": 75 matches in google news (8 in google books)
 * "Center for Economic and Policy Research" "progressive think tank": 10 matches in google news (0 in google books)

Blog
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)
 * 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)

Does this need to be worked in?
Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * |htmlws-main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.housingwatch.com%2F2010%2F02%2F26%2Fit-wasnt-a-mortgage-recession-after-all-so-why-dont-we-feel-b%2F It Wasn't a Mortgage Recession After All: So Why Don't We Feel Better?
 * 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)
 * I haven't taken time to look for other sources, but it's likely reported elsewhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

'Economic Reporting Review' correction
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)

Type of economist?
What kind of economist is Dean Baker? CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 &#124; Talk'' 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

^^^ "Accurate?" Is this entire page written by cheerleaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.49.179 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Clueless anonymous commentators also played their part. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Rewrite
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)

Why is this economist notable for having been arrested?
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)
 * That is absurd. I am reverting the introduction to the pre-smear version. EllenCT (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Improving citations of article
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)

External links modified
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)

Puffery, non-reliable sourcing
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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Propagandist with a Think Tank
We don't need a definition or extrapolation of propaganda techniques that Baker uses but ethical appeal should be obvious. He's famously almost incoherent. Much worse, but a requirement for prominence or fealty as a "a well meaning guy" is his tacit approval of corporate parasites and militarism that enriches part of the country while laying waste to everything else not including people in other countries.

"For those who are thinking of abuses in military contracting, let me make two quick points. While secrecy in military contracts is excessive, there are legitimate grounds for not posting the plans for our latest weapon systems on the web."