Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Robert Reich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Robert Reich is an economist, or even purports to be, please add citations

[edit]

The lead refers to Reich as a "political economist." ("Political economy" is an older term for what we now call "economics".) In fact Reich's academic background is in the Law. He has no advanced degree in economics, and I can't find that he even claims to be an economist (or a political economist).

As the article correctly reports, Reich's major academic training is in the Law. He has "a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. From 1973 to 1974 he served as law clerk to Judge Frank M. Coffin, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and from 1974 to 1976 was Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Robert Bork." That started a distinguished career in government and academia. It's clear he's focused on labor throughout his career, and has written and opined on economic subjects, as we all do.

But his only education in economics, as far as I can tell, was his stint as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford (alongside Bill Clinton), where he was in the "Philosophy, Politics and Economics" program, a distinguished undergraduate/post-graduate program that sounds fascinating, but is more comparable to a liberal arts major or perhaps a triple major. He does not have a degree of any sort in economics.

Moreover I have not been able to find any place where Reich himself refers to himself as an economist or a political economist.

Here is his bio on robertreich.org:

"ROBERT B. REICH is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock, “The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "Saving Capitalism." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, INEQUALITY FOR ALL."

One might argue that his participation in the Oxford program made him a "political economist." This might likely be an attempt to distinguish a political economist from an economist. This is a novel definition of the former term (although I see it has crept into our article on that subject).

FWIW, here's a Google ngram on "political economy" vs. "economics": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=political+economy%2Ceconomics%2C+political+economics&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ceconomics%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economics%3B%2Cc0


...and here's an ngram on "political economist" vs "economist": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=economist%2C+political+economist&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ceconomist%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpolitical%20economist%3B%2Cc0

As you can see, "political economist" tracks with "political economy", and both track downward as the simpler "economist" and "economics" took their place.

Thus we probably shouldn't call Reich an economist unless he has a degree in the subject or at least calls himself an economist. And we shouldn't call him a "political economist" unless we adopt a new definition of that term that hasn't shown up on Google ngrams yet. (And that, I believe, would amount to original research.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frappyjohn (talk • contribs) 01:45, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be fairly easy to find a wide variety of sources referring to him as an "economist". Often as the primary descriptor.
-- Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wallyfromdilbert: Any sources from academic economics, or just news? Benjamin (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wallyfromdilbert: What he said. I've been looking, and I can't find any sign of a non-popularizing designation as an "economist". Hell, it's not even clear what the subject of his B.A. is, as his official bio, C, and even Dartmouth's alumni magazine elides over the fact. I found one (1) passing claim that he has political science major, but that's it.
And as for popular references, well, Stephen Moore was for years referred to as an economist at his think tank (The Heritage Foundation), despite his actual lack of credentials, until someone noticed and they had to change his job title. --Calton | Talk 23:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what Wikipedia policies or guidelines refer to this additional criteria for reliable sources regarding lead descriptors, but I would be interested in that information if you can link to it. If you have reliable sources that refer to Reich differently than the current lead description, those would also be relevant to link to. Regarding other articles, if they are using a person's employer as the source for lead descriptions rather than independent reliable sources, then those changes should be made on that article or discussed on that article's talk page, rather than at this article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please find: A. Academic Work B. Being called an economist by economists https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm This should provide all we need to set aside this issue. Robert Reich is not simply an economist, but he literally doesn't understand anything about economics (comparative advantage, Ricardian model of international trade as an example). BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the Wikipedia policies that refer to this additional criteria? MOS:ROLEBIO says: "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources." Please see the links above to almost a dozen major publications using the descriptor "economist". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a controversial label, provide sources. Simple as that. Robert Reich doesn't hold a degree, hasn't published any articles in academic journals, yet also challenges the academic orthodoxy, which usually means the person is simply a pop economist.
This is the same for, as an example, Ron Paul. Just like Robert Reich, he has spoken extensively on the economy and certainly has reliable sources saying he is an economist. The primary problem is, Ron Paul isn't an economist (no degrees, no academic writing, and he challenges the orthodoxy of economics).
Also, I should mention, I think I may have been a bit condescending in the beginning, and I didn't AGF. Sorry.
BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by your comment. There are literally a dozen sources cited above, and the source cited in the current version of the article is The New York Times. Ron Paul is a separate article, and I have not looked at how sources describe him. (Also just so you know, I fixed your comment's indentation for you). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop directing me to Mother Jones and instead show me academic work, degrees, and economists saying Robert Reich is an economist. More than anything, I would propose adding "pseudo-economist" to the lead because he opposes free trade (although, to be fair, he isn't an economist, and knows nothing about international trade). BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even when we disagree with the reliable sources, we still have to rely on them for the content we add, rather than our own personal opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>Calls Robert Reich an economist
>Says I'm putting my opinions above WP:RS
>MFW — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Reich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
It is obvious if you watch Robert Reich's entire testimony or read a transcript, rather than taking the quote out of context, that he was talking about equal opportunity, as opposed to saying something racist. Here is the full quote in context:

"Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

hardly controversial. Moreover: (1) these remarks were made on Jan. 9, over a month prior to the passage of the stimulus legislation; and (2) nothing in the legislation proposed by President Obama or in the legislation ultimately passed by Congress contains a race-based restriction (see full bill here: http://www.recovery.gov/).

Accordingly, this testimony should be removed from the "controversial remarks" section.

Thubb421 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war re Milo Berkeley visit

[edit]

The following para:

"In February 2017, Reich published a conspiracy theory purporting that left-wing violence at UC Berkeley against Donald Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos was a right-wing false flag for Trump to strip universities of federal funding. This idea was described as "phantasmagorical" by The Washington Post.[34]"

Has been added repeatedly by a user, User_talk:Valentina Cardoso. The statement is (1) a bad-faith reading of Mr. Reich's claim, (2) in hideous violation of NPOV, (3) not a notable event in Mr. Reich's career. If the article wasn't protected I would correct it myself (as other anon IP readers have tried to do).

Looking at the user's contribution history, they are bent on editing conservative viewpoints into Wikipedia, and not actually providing any encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is not your soapbox.

71.114.37.58 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@71.114.37.58: For now, I have restored it but I reduced it to what he said, which is that he wouldn't rule out that theory. This is different from originating or outright endorsing it. However, overall, I think we need to think of WP:NOTNEWS in general with his article and recent events are not really things we should be adding unless they're very pivotal (such as awards). @Valentina Cardoso: Please comment here, or I will undo my restoration of your content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be included at all. It was a minor remark and nothing he's followed up on. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have an issue that Reich or his employer is editing this article? Valentina Cardoso (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC) [1][reply]

At least they acknowledge it. I haven't read what the IP changed, but certainly Robert Reich doesn't have the right to determine what is or is not in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2] "Which raises the possibility that Yiannopoulos and Brietbart were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding...Hmmm. Connect these dots: [six points]...I don’t want to add to the conspiratorial musings of so many about this very conspiratorial administration, but it strikes me there may be something worrying going on here. I wouldn’t bet against it".

Yeah, so after he spoke to the local news, and Breitbart reacted, he wrote (i.e. published) an article in which he didn't change his opinion. Stop painting it as an off-the-cuff remark in the heat of the moment that was spun into oblivion by Breitbart Valentina Cardoso (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thoughtcrime ! thoughtcrime ! ooh ! ooh ! Give him to the Dominicans, they'll get to the bottom of this quickly ! You people ... 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Reich. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Height

[edit]

Multiple sources list Robert Reich's height (4 ft 10). For example: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1049185/ This is relevant information for this article, and yet it is removed every time someone attempts to add it. Why is that? 45.62.219.78 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Lots of the content is user-contributed. Find a reliable secondary source for his height. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it as pure trivia. Eye color and hair color is verifiable too, but it doesn't matter. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF. We are under no obligtion to fill out every conceivable field: we generally only include height and weight in infoboxes for occupations that commonly and consistently mention it, e.g. {{Infobox professional wrestler}}. {{Infobox person}} states the height field should only be used If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant. Reich is not notable for his height, nor is height relevant enough to include in the infobox. Please discuss here before reintroducing it. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/03/14/the-true-measure-of-a-man/aabb4f4d-aa29-4200-9190-f2bc2b28403c/?utm_term=.8a2c7eab8e6eb Seems like it's notable to me. Seems like a good source as well. Gripdamage (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally Reich himself has claimed his shortness as part of his public persona. See this blog post: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/i-was-always-very-short-for-my-age-and-when-i-was-a-kid-relied-on-a-few-older-bo/815357705143494/ See the trailer for Inequality For All that opens with a comment about his size and contains another comment about being picked on by bigger boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCbAyk8aRxI Clearly this is a part of his own image as cultivated by him. Gripdamage (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the thing most people want to know is does he have dwarfism or some other medical condition. I presume not and the definition of dwarfism is stature less than 4'10" so he's not technically a dwarf, just much shorter than the american norm for males which is 5'9" but much taller than the average individual with dwarfism. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, see the medical condition is mentioned, the actual stature number I'm sure is available from the subject, if that doesn then result in primary source snafu. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
why is anyone's height an issue? Please clarify. thanks. 68.11.205.124 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing double?

[edit]

Just to point out, you are currently using the same pic twice - in the infobox and then, almost immediately below, in the early life section.Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It was a recent change and I just undid it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to local development and the inclusion of quotes.

[edit]

I've restored (again) the quote from Reich's letter to the Landmarks Commission in Berkeley opposing redevelopment of a local house; it's illustrative to contrast his language in the letter ("character of the neighborhood") with that in the interview. grendel|khan 16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economist

[edit]

Robert Reich isn't an economist. If this is even a debate, we have crossed the grounds from p to n statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bases its content on reliable sources, including publications like The New York Times. Please continue the discussion above rather than starting a new thread about the same topic. Please also sign your comments as explained in the talk page guidelines: WP:TPG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

I am aware of WP:RS, but I honestly don't know how a (opinion) piece on a new Netflix series (not academic at all) suffices this criteria. I have posted a source for it under Krugman's Princeton website. Please refrain from vandalism in the future. Secondly, an off-hand reference in a NYT article about a Netflix series isn't enough to push a policy opportunist and lawyer by trade into the "economist" position. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 22:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would falsely claim that a business news story by a staff reporter at The New York Times is an "opinion" piece, but there are numerous other sources cited in the discussion above, which is where you should be posting your comments. Please also properly indent your comments and follow the other talk page guidelines. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the lede please be rewritten in a less advertising, more neutral manner?

[edit]

The current lede reads like a promotional self-bio and, indeed, the quoted paragraph from just such a bio in the topic about how Reich isn't an economist appears to be what much of the content of the lede was taken from. The current lede does not appear to even resemble a neutral point-of-view and instead reads more like an advertisement for books or speaking/consulting gigs from Mr. Reich. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. Vbscript2 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?

[edit]

I cannot find any reliable source saying this, including those cited in the piece. What is the source for this claim? 2600:8800:6108:6E00:E489:1425:2358:6A9F (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick internet search came up with this post by Reich [3] saying he is Jewish. I would assume a more extensive search could find this stated in reliable sources. You can be WP:BOLD and add a source, a "citations needed" tag, or remove the content as unsourced. – notwally (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vize 97 Prize

[edit]

The beginning of the article is: "| awards = The VIZE 97 Prize (2003) }}", which I have two main concerns about: 1.) The first is the presentation. I'm sure the "|" anb "}}" was supposed to do something for the formatting that, likely due to a typo, did not come through, but I'm not sure what the desired presentation is or how to correct/achieve it. 2.) I am not sure whether the VIZE 97 Prize necessarily needs to be in the lede, unless it is some sort of honorific or other abbreviation like those imparted to Fellows of the Institute of Phsysics. I'm not overly familiar with formatting, how to edit talk pages or the prize in and of itself, but I felt like it was worth addressing. Pleas For Politicking! (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Reich&oldid=1257264147"