Talk:Gabriel Zucman/Archive 1

To User:869891605
Article tags in WP are not the place to have a proper debate. When you put one up, and someone takes it down in disagreement (having proposed alternative points), you go to the talk page to debate. Reverting a tag is not the right format. Accusing someone of "bad faith" just because they disagreed with your tag is also not acceptable.

There is a lot of secondary sourced material in this article that covers his work and credentials (e.g. RePEc database of citations etc.), however, even a basic google-check throws up hundreds of references in the leading global papers/new outlets on Zucman (e.g. WSJ, FT, NYT etc.). If someone wanted to write a "promotional" article then including the quotes from these interviews where is called many flattering things, would do it. Regardless, I notice his book also has its own WP page (and was reviewed by the NYT and WSJ), and was given an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics ?? There are many economists with articles in WP that have not had an article published in the Quarterly? It would also be helpful if you used your WP login and not an IP. Britishfinance (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User:869891605 Sorry, I don't normally edit Wikipedia so I don't have an account! As I wrote below, I was particularly surprised that Zucman has a Wikipedia page, and even moreso to check the edit history and find it's been around for a couple of years and has mostly been fleshed out by a non-academic economist. It seems you have personal interest in tax havens and are therefore promoting academic researchers who work in that area, but that doesn't seem to fit my read of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. The set of economists who have published in the QJE or similar major journals is at least in the several thousands, and if you went by that criteria, most successful recent PhD economists at top schools would get a Wikipedia page. And as I noted below, citation in the popular press is common for successful economists (I myself have a few! :)), but these are more evidence of Recentism than notability in my (and most other academic economist's) view.


 * In the page you referenced about tags, it says: "...If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." So it seems by that rule, the tag should remain until we resolve it in discussion, and in fact you were at fault for removing it the second time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.31 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry to the delay in replying as other priorities interfered. Again, accusing someone of "bad faith" is not acceptable in WP.  Further ad hominem attacks on my edits ("personal interest" etc.) is also not acceptable (and simply untrue); and often a flag that the accuser is not capable of proving their arguement on the facts/rules (as is demonstrated below).  Your background ("economist from a top-ranked institution") is also of no relevance, you could be a plumber (which you may be), or an academic person with an axe to grind against Zucman.  This IP address has edited on WP as far back as 8 March 2007, which means that your assertion that you do not have a proper WP account is questionable. A tag on an article is an assertion by an editor, if an editor disagrees with the assertion and takes down it should not be replaced without either new information or showing that the editor was wrong.  However, it is more helpful that you have engaged in the talk page and on WP's rules on notability (rather than your own), which I will discuss below, and hence why the tag is removed. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability
Let's go through Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

Full disclosure, I'm a professional economist at a top-ranked institution, who personally enjoys Zucman's work. I believe he'll eventually meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but I don't think that'll happen for another few years at least. I have read the entire article and am also personally familiar with his work -- it's complementary to my own, and I enjoy sharing it with non-academics.

However, I was very surprised to find this Wikipedia page given his relatively unknown status in professional economics. I am also suspicious that this Wikipedia page was created in bad faith, both because the original creation was even earlier in his career (2 years out of his PhD), and that almost all further content seems to have been generated by a finance professional personally interested in tax havens and not in whether Zucman is a notable academic.

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

If this were true, he would have at least one of the following: tenure (the most important signal of this fact), any editorial board experience in a major journal, or a highly prestigious award. The standard economist ranking based on citations, https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html, lists him at rank 1834. For perspective, there are fewer than 1300 economists on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economists, which includes a very wide definition of 'economist'. Many of these ~1300 historical economic philosophers that would be excluded from the IDEAS ranking (e.g. Adam Smith, Karl Marx). (this fact obviously doesn't disqualify Zucman as notable, but it's a small piece of evidence that suggests the Wikipedia page was not written for pure academic notability reasons).

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

For economics, these are the Nobel, the John Bates Clark Medal, and the Bernacer Prize. He has none of these currently. Note that even many of the Bernacer Prize winners do not have Wikipedia pages, despite being much more significant in the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ%C3%A1n_Bern%C3%A1cer_Prize (this fact obviously doesn't disqualify Zucman as notable, but it's a small piece of evidence that suggests the Wikipedia page was not written for pure academic notability reasons).

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]

Not currently. These largely happen late in an economist's career.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

N/A

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

Not only is Zucman not chaired, but he doesn't even have tenure currently.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Not currently. Though these largely happen late in an economist's career.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

He has had similar media coverage as other successful junior economists. However, I will cede that this point is the most likely satisfied criteria, since his work informs recent events. I believe whether he qualifies as notable here might boil down to your views on Recentism on Wikipedia.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Not only is Zucman not the chief editor of a major journal, but to my knowledge, he has never even been on the editorial board of any major journal.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

N/A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.31 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of points here regarding your partial paste of the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines (e.g for example, you forgot to include the part that states that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable).


 * 1. On criteria 1, WP's expands the guideline with examples in "Specific criteria notes", which states that: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". Zucman is one of the most cited authors in history on the RePEc for Tax Havens, and the most cited author for Tax Havens for the last 10 years on RePEc.  In addition, he is the only academic to have an article published in the Quarterly Journal (the most important journal in economics) on Tax Havens since Hines himself (who only did it once in 1994).  That makes Zucman notable.  Your comments under criteria 1. are YOUR interpritation of what criteria 1 is, but are not, the actual rules.  Your fixation is on a tenured professor, but if that was the criteria, it would state it. It doesn't.


 * 2. On criteria 7, WP expands the guidelines with examples in "Specific criteria notes", which states that: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Zucman's work has been featured, and Zucman interviewed, in almost every major financial paper in the western world (WSJ, FT, NYT etc.).  Your assertion that "He has had similar media coverage as other successful junior economists." is simply not credible and good  evidence of a strong bias against Zucman (despite your faux claims otherwise).  However, in addition to the first statement, WP also add in criteria 7 that: "Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study."  You have consistently ignored Zucman's major book, The Hidden Wealth of Nations, which also has its own wikipedia page (again, not created by me), that has been well received and profiled in the WSJ and NYT and is also ranked on the citation database (which WP uses).


 * Zucman meets two of Wikipedia's WP:NACADEMIC guidelines with room to spare, and therefore he is notable as an academic. You personal views that because he is not a tenured professor (or other criteria you list) is YOUR criteria for notability - it is not Wikipedia's.  You may disagree with Wikipedia's rules, but that it not my concern.Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)