Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clearly more at stake here than just a wording issue

So, there's clearly some more going on here than just how to describe something in a pipe. Is the dispute over exactly how to characterize this gentleman's views on economic theory? As an uninvolved editor who'd like to understand the edit warring going on, I would like to hear arguments from both sides here on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. — e. ripley\^talk 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The current text reads as:

Schiff attributes his economic forecasts to an understanding of the Austrian School,[41] a school of economic thought generally categorized as heterodox (or non-mainstream).[42][43][41]

Apparently there is dispute about the cited text that I've italicized above. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• A basic overview is this.

The article subject (Peter Schiff) advocates views derived from school of thought that is not considered mainstream. There are multiple sources that indicate that the group that he advocates for is not mainstream, including one of the sources being Peter Schiff himself.

Schiff describes himself as part of a group called "the Austrian School" and further claims that this group influences ideas which brought him into prominence .... basically, the ideas from this group that Schiff claims are intimately connected to his notability. Obviously, it is not common knowledge what "the Austrian School" might be, and there are editors who hold the opinion that providing just a very basic context would greatly help readers gain an understanding of the ideas espoused by the Peter Schiff, while other reader continue to decry these extra 3 or 4 words as "excessive" or as having no relevance to Peter Schiff. BigK HeX (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that providing four words of context about this group ["the Austrian School"] which Schiff describes as a large influence on his ideas is pretty clearly helping readers to gain an understanding of Schiff. But, in providing the basic context about what "the Austrian School" is, one complaint has even gone so far as to call the 3 or 4 words "excessive". As far as I can tell, there's not much else going on here than blatant and unjustifiable censorship of sourced and helpful information.

I think it's pretty crucial to encyclopedic writing (and mandated by WP:UNDUE), but ... in any case, it's certainly not unusual to provide simple context within a biography, when a prominent majority view exists. This article is one example. BigK HeX (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• My view is that Schiff has been influenced by the Austrian School, but he is not in any way the founder or sole voice in the movement. There is a debate on whether he is even considered an economist, which again makes the entire "adherent of the Austrian School" comment a bit of a stretch. I prefer to put Schiff's comments, saying he feels his ideas are out of the mainstream, or he supports a nonconventional change in the economic system, as opposed to putting a third-party judgement on him. By saying that he is a proponent of a school that is "outside of the mainstream", we are implying his ideas are out of the mainstream. I want to know what Schiff believes in and what he attributes learning from the Austrian School. I don't want to have readers read simply that he is a proponent of the School, leaving them to wonder what he believes from the jumbled history listed on the Austrian School page. Again, I want to make it clear that the Austrian School is not filled with Schiffs. Not everyone is preaching doom on the US economy. Putting him in terms of the School opens much up for interpretation, and it places undue judgement on Schiff. Similarly, I understand many editors were upset by the "non-professional economist" label on Schiff. I personally feel this is the same argument, again taking a jab at his credibility without offering specifics on his beliefs.--Screwball23 talk 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• First Screwball states, "I prefer to put Schiff's comments, saying he feels his ideas are out of the mainstream..."
• Then Screwball objects about how "...saying that he is a proponent of a school that is "outside of the mainstream", we are implying his ideas are out of the mainstream."

Anyone else have more success in identifying the actual complaint here? BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be a little clearer. Schiff had a comment where he said "the Austrian School is not mainstream these days." From that standpoint, it is least objectionable to say

"Schiff attributes his economic forecasts to an understanding of the Austrian School of economics. Schiff voices strong support for the Austrian School, and says it was first introduced to him by his father, Irwin Schiff. Schiff admits his economic views are not-mainstream economics, and like the Austrian School, he makes judgments without a strict adherence to economic statistics."

My feeling is this is a good way to establish the relationship between him and the Austrian School while keeping away from labels on the Austrian School itself.--Screwball23 talk 07:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with the simpler text, but you have an interesting proposal for the text there. I'm pretty clear on the fact that you don't want the Austrian School to be labeled (except in a limited fashion through quoting Schiff). But, I still don't understand why:

1. we necessarily should "keep away from labels on the Austrian School itself" when it provides basic context and is well-sourced, and
2. why Schiff is allowed to apply the label, but we ignore the prominent majority view?

Schiff is pretty clear on the notion that his ideas on the economy are significantly influenced by the ideas from the Austrian school and in return that he advocates for the school. The relevance seems readily apparent to me. BigK HeX (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

These are fair questions. I want to avoid the idea of providing opinions or "basic context" on the School. Even if a politician belonged to a fringe group, like, let's say, the Nation of Islam, an article on the politician would be informative if it stated, "politican X was a member of the group, saying he joined because of its views on race politics/whatever. He advocated for the group during interviews on ABC, FOX, etc, etc." It would lean on the opinionated side if it emphasized the group over the politician, ex: "politician x is an adherent of the Nation of Islam, a fringe group of extremists seeking to establish civil rights through whatever means necessary." I firmly believe the same principle applies here. We are writing about Schiff, and the Austrian School should not be labeled on his page, regardless of the "prominent majority view" (I'm not saying the majority view is not notable; it is definitely a topic for the Austrian School article). It is jumping the gun to say Schiff and the Austrian School are one and the same, and it is far easier to misinterpret and even discredit Schiff's beliefs by introducing the Austrian School as a non-mainstream school.

Did that answer your question or no? Feel free to ask me again. --Screwball23 talk 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been very clear.

However, personally, I'd have no problem with an article on Politician X that says, "Politician X describes himself as a representative of the Nation of Islam, a militant civil rights advocacy group<ref1><ref2>" or some such.

But, in any case, you have elaborated well on your feelings here, even though we may strongly disagree. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there single, reliable sources that say Schiff is an adherent of the non-mainstream, Austrian School of economics? If so could they be posted here? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit caught me off-guard. I thought we had settled this issue, but apparently not. :-< I again want to stress the fact that readers will read about Schiff and see the "non-mainstream" label and begin to make-up prejudiced opinions on him. Think about it like this: What is non-mainstream in economics? Communism? Fascism? You name it, it probably isn't going to describe Schiff 100%. Without a description of Schiff's views, it is easy for the reader to misinterpret what the School and Schiff are all about. It is also likely that people can think of Schiff and the School as one-in-the-same, and begin to make judgements on the school based on Schiff's economic presentations. --Screwball23 talk 02:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There haven't been any reliable sources presented that challenge the assertion that the school is non-mainstream. Schiff himself describes it as non-mainstream. This argument that readers will automatically presume non-mainstream to mean "fascist" or some such is an argument beyond credulity, IMO. Non-mainstream means "outside of the mainstream" and that is an assertion not even challenged by Schiff himself ... not to mention it being the prevalent majority view. So far as I can tell, what we settled is that we strongly disagree ... however, it seems that ultimately we have my edit that is based on RS's and is relevant to quotes from the subject himself, and then there's your edit which may be based on this "fascism" speculation and lacking the support of RS's here. My feeling is that Wikipedia is not censored and that we clarify a minority view when discussed and that we provide context for the reader. BigK HeX (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about proving whether or not the Austrian School is considered non-mainstream. This is an article about Peter Schiff; I see no value in placing this non-mainstream disclaimer on top of his views. It is putting a spin on his views, leading the reader to make vague connections and generalizations. It's like saying, "So-and-so has stated a belief in UFOs, which is a non-mainstream view" or "John is a creationist, which is a non-mainstream view" or "Susan supports the Republican Party, which is generally considered to be socially conservative." It is better to use the perspective of the person, including what about the School resonates with Schiff.--Screwball23 talk 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: I've removed the request from the pending dispute list at the Third Opinion Project because it is already being handled by Third Opinion Wikipedian E. Ripley. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be digging back in on this today and see if I can sort out some of the positions here. — e. ripley\^talk 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through the opinions here. Thank you, this is very helpful. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to both positions. I agree that it would be preferable to actually try to explain which of Schiff's economic beliefs in specific are not in the mainstream -- but I also don't necessarily think that a quick description of what the Austrian school of economics is, within this article, is inappropriate. I often find that in articles on technical subjects, there is not enough context given to some idea that is not immediately obvious to a layperson, and instead relies on the wikilinked article to explain it all, which I think is just poor writing practice.

With that being said, can anyone point me to what specifically he believes that is outside the mainstream when it comes to these ideas? Which of his ideas are derived from these theories? Also, since this is mostly supported by book references, would it be possible for whoever inserted them to quickly summarize what the citations say? I apologize for asking this, but it's necessary for me since I am largely ignorant of the subject itself. — e. ripley\^talk 19:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you needing an exhaustive list for the article, or is this something where a partial list would aid in furthering your personal comprehension of the issue? BigK HeX (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, it appears that the sources I'd seen before are there to support the notion that the Austrian school is not mainstream. Disregard; I think that's obvious enough on its face. I am still curious, though, about which specific ideas he supports that are not mainstream. Nevermind on the written citations though. — e. ripley\^talk 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have cites, but "I think I've heard" of a couple of ideas, so I can give you a partial list. It's pretty well known he's a "sound money" gold bug, which is a common idea in the Austrian School. I'm fairly sure he's cited the Austrian Business Cycle Theory as a basis behind some of his dire prognostications. I'm not sure if I've seen him specifically invoke it, but his explanation of his "dollar crash" predictions seem to invoke rhetoric that sounds like the Austrian theory on inflation.

It sounds like you're coming to a decision without this list though...? BigK HeX (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, pretty much what I'd said before - I think outlining more of what his views are that aren't mainstream (and then mentioning that they're derived from the Austrian school, assuming that they are, so people can get more information) might be appropriate. But in order for me to propose some kind of compromise, I'd want to know what his views are. The interview that's cited where he mentions his father's involvement may serve as a basis, as I recall he mentioned some specific theories in there. I'll take another look. — e. ripley\^talk 14:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the thing to do is ask Screwball to propose some sort of language that would satisfy his concern about knowing more about what specifically Schiff subscribes to that is based on this school, since that was his question. Screwball? — e. ripley\^talk 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with that whole bit is that Screwball is only speculating that such citations exist. Requiring such a list seems to be setting a pretty high bar --- and very possibly an impossibly high bar, since it is my personal opinion that searching for such citations is a wild goose chase, given that Schiff doesn't release any academic or technical papers that I know of.

But, moreover, demanding a specific list of Austrian theories seems to be rather excessive, given that our subject, Peter Schiff himself, is perfectly fine with attributing his ideas to just the broad "Austrian School".

In any case, I guess we'll see what Screwball proposes. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, the context provided on the Austrian School is helpful and properly cited. Seems like that context would be unaffected, even if a list of more specifics were introduced. As Schiff himself doesn't seem to make attribution to specific Austrian theories, and AFAIK, Schiff just generally claims "the Austrian School" as the basis of his results in his quotes, so I think the context provided in the current text is pretty appropriate.

Sure more detail would be useful to add, but would it really impact the sentence in question here? BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and really, in my mind it does not make a difference in terms of that discrete question (in other words, I still do not have a problem with a very short descriptor of the notion that the Austrian school's ideas have fallen out of favor among modern economists). Still, it WOULD be nice to be able to describe in some more detail what exactly Schiff does subscribe to that meets that criteria, and if those kind of citations exist, perhaps Screwball knows them. In case that's true I'd like to give him a chance to propose something more specific. If he can't, then while it might be desirable to have more specifics, if they simply don't exist then we can't wait in a vacuum until they do. Moreover, as you note the general descriptor about the school not being mainstream, if it's properly presented, I don't have a problem with. I am mostly just trying to find a way to satisfy all parties -- i.e., the descriptor of the school would stay, while also adding some context about what exactly he believes. — e. ripley\^talk 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see Big Hex has tried to get refs linking the Austrian School to Schiff's principles, and since he hasn't been able to find them, I'll take his word for it. I respect him for trying to get them, and hopefully he can find something that will expand on the economic theories Schiff believes. I want to see some of Schiff's positions in there, and his advocacy for a gold standard and the Austrian School theory of inflation absolutely would benefit the article. Overall, I am very satisfied with the open-mindedness and fair judgment that our Third Opinion Editor (User:E. Ripley) has given us, and I have decided to drop any edit war on this issue. I still have my concerns on the non-mainstream label, but if our Third Party feels it gives relevant context, I'll agree.--Screwball23 talk 18:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Video Blogger

I don't think that calling Schiff a 'video blogger' in the lead is necessary, significant or notable. He may also be a business manager, a father, a speed typist, an auctioneer, a world traveler etc. but we don't need to mention these things, particularly in the lead. I would suggest we take it out. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its now a notable aspect for Schiff, but I'd lean towards it probably not being overwhelmingly notable. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. However, it may be valuable to say Schiff gained notoriety for YouTube videos which confirmed several of his predictions on the 2007-2009 U.S. Economic Recession. or something to that effect.--Screwball23 talk 01:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Schiff an investment banker?

I've just skimmed through the entire article and was a bit surprised that the word 'investment banker' doesn't appear anywhere on the page. IMO, that's the best descriptor for his job. Any objections to adding it to the section on his career? A quick google search brings up these articles that call him that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --LK (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .... I'll have to check out those links, but he seems more like an investment broker than a banker. BigK HeX (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed description from more generic 'businessman' to 'investment broker'.

Schiff is NOT Dr. Doom!

Dammit, he doesn't even have a Ph.D. How the hell can he be called Dr. Doom? That moniker belongs to either Nouriel Roubini or Marc Faber. To prove my point, Google "Dr. Doom" economics. I'm deleting that reference from the Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.9.187 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, get a drink of water, and don't get your panties in a bunch. :-) There is no copyright on the nickname, and it is simply a moniker. The two no-name guys you are talking about might have PhDs, but that doesn't matter in public perception. Dr. Evil didn't actually have a degree, neither did Dr. Strangelove or Dr. Octopus. But the nickname stuck anyway.--Screwball23 talk 19:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out that Nouriel Roubini is better known and far more influential that than Peter Schiff, and that he is the economist usually credited with accurately foreseeing how the housing bubble and following recession would play out. LK (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into economics like that, and I'm not a big fan of all these forecaster types anyway. I will end the discussion with the simple fact that there can be more than one Dr. Doom [8] and in any case, whether you agree with me or not, the moniker does not literally mean the person has a PhD. In other words, if the guy is nicknamed "Dr. Doom", all that means is his nickname is "Dr. Doom", not that he's a doctor or PhD. Aside from a few frustrated geeks on wikipedia, there is no one who will argue that Schiff can't have the nickname because he does not have a PhD. --Screwball23 talk 06:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any of this, all the article does is point out how he has been referred to by that moniker...and multiple citations are given to prove it. If this guy has a problem with Schiff being called that then he should take it up with the news media. Wikipedians didn't give Schiff that moniker, we just pointed out how he was called it. (And BTW...Henry Kaufman was called Dr. Doom before any of these guys.)

Also, Dr. Evil went to evil medical school when he was 18. He may very well have gotten his degree. Dr. Octopus certainly has a PhD...he was a well-respected nuclear physicist before he went crazy. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was Michael Hudson who laid out the best analysis of the coming crisis in his 2006 Harper's article: The new road to serfdom: An illustrated guide to the coming real estate collapse WjtWeston (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ORLY? I'll take Ron Paul's prepared remarks at the House Financial Services Committee hearing on Sept 10, 2003. And Dr. Paul's statement isn't behind a paywall. Musicmax (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

: Good for Ron Paul. That means he's predicted 13 of the last 2 market crises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.221.87.4 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

False info

"Schiff admits his economic views are not mainstream, and like the Austrian School, he makes judgments without a strict adherence to economic statistics." Schiff thinks that macroeconmics is BS, but he often mentions P/E, and agrees that you can use statistics to analyze a particular company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.144.182 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit in Economic Predictions Section

I edited out the phrase "a prediction that five years later has not proven correct" as this is an unsupported editor's opinion. That was my edit. It's not opinion at all. The dollar has not lost much of its value in 2007-2012. It just hasn't happened. The inflation rate 2007-2012 has been the lowest of any 5-year period in the past 2 decades. The reference "3" is only to Schiff's book, not to an authoritative source of the dollar's value five years after the book was written. In fact, a simple inflation calculator online will show the last five years the dollar has lost nearly 11 percent of its purchasing value! 184.7.109.84 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also edited the following price by removing the very last unsupported (provably false) sentence.

"On December 31, 2006 in a telecast debate on Fox News, Schiff forecast that "what's going to happen in 2007" is that "real estate prices are going to come crashing back down to Earth". This proved to be incorrect, as prices continued to rise throughout 2007."

In fact, every source I checked shows inflation adjusted real estate prices reversing their rise in mid 2006. It appears that Schiff was not so much making a prediction as stating what had already begun to happen. My sources:

• http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble#Causes
• http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/United-States/Price-History

184.7.109.84 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and can I add another source to yours? The US housing bubble peaked at the end of 2005:

Reinhart, Carmen M.; Rogoff, Kenneth S. (2009). This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 160 (see table 10.8). ISBN 978-0-691-14216-6.

Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many promoters of Schiff's persona as economic pundit and forecaster here. They have used the Wiki format to create seemingly objective endorsements of Schiff which can be used to enhance his business. Most of their source citations turn out to be Schiff PR or merely press or video reports of Schiff's unsubstantiated statements and opinions.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you morons have removed my comments about the US Fiat currency being measured against other Fiat currency instead of goods and gold/silver. Why don't you IDIOTS learn how economics really works and that the mainstream indicators are bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.14 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

An anonymous editor has claimed that there is not enough criticism of Schiff in this article, and has therefore attempted to add more via weasel words and unsourced commentary. He has not (yet) discussed his proposed changes here. I invite him to add reliable sources to the "criticism" section I've created. As a broader point, however, he should be aware that Wikipedia BLP policy is to describe the views of the subject in detail and to allow him/her to respond to all notable critiques. This can result in the biography appearing to be overly supportive--but only if you do not fully understand Wikipedia rules. After all, the Noam Chomsky article isn't endorsing its subject, either.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

TIMES: What is your relationship to Schiff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.19.17 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You were already blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy for BLPs as well as NPOV. But this takes the cake. You are supposed to assume good faith. Making false accusations or personal attacks is not acceptable practice here. Before making further edits, I would suggest reviewing Wikipedia rules.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS says it prefers a more neutral section heading like "Reception" rather than criticism. This allows for text on both praise, popularity and criticism. Looking at the current criticism section I see it is sourced but it should be summarized to about half its current length. Furthermore the criticisms seem to be about investment performance, not specifically about Schiff himself. We should be careful to present this material in a neutral way.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I didn't write that criticism, I just combined it in one section. I intend to make suitable changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

TIMES: I did assume good faith. I asked you a question. Assuming good faith doesn't mean that impartial readers won't call you out and correct the recurring promotional bias to your edits. What is your relationship to Schiff? Of course you need not answer if that would be problematic for you. It would be helpful for you to cite more objective sources than Schiff's own marketing materials and promotional videos for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.19.17 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I never cited any promotional materials for anything. Apparently, you're blaming me for writing the entire article, whereas I only started editing it due to the incoherent rants I caught you inserting numerous times. As it stands, the fact that the article cites Schiff's website for information on his company is not my doing, nor is it unusual. Give me one example of me citing a promotional source. You can't. I haven't been adding sources at all. I'm just trimming and summarizing text. You should probably be blocked from editing this page under WP:NOTHERE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you just make bad faith accusations against two other editors in the above section, and call Schiff a fraud as if your opinion matters? Do you not understand Wikipedia policy?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who called Mr. Schiff a "fraud." My own opinion of him is irrelevant anyway. I do suspect that some of the editors here are promoters of Mr. Schiff, but the article gradually seems to be taking shape in a good form. 24.151.19.17 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Austrian Economists. To help you understand that Mr. Schiff is not one of these...

See this Wikipedia article on Austrian Economists and their contributions to research theory and scholarly discourse. Although Mr. Schiff is a commentator who refers to and agrees with the work of some of the Austrians, he is not an Economist. By studying these examples of actual Austrian Economists, you may be better able to understand why the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

Thank you24.151.19.17 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of Edit warring by anonymous, IP-identified, user

You have failed to cite any actual sources to back up your claim that Schiff is not an economist or a true Austrian, you have removed countless citations for no apparent reason, and you have demonstrated an inability to comprehend Wikipedia policy by stating that his biography cannot mention his religion or ethnic background. All of your changes have gone against consensus and have contradicted reliable sources. Your edits are based entirely on your subjective opinion and your own original research. You cannot expect to edit war your way to victory. Do not make further radical changes without discussion here. You will be reported if you continue to make such changes without consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO TIME CHANGE: Hi. Not true at all. I wrote a paragraph on the subject of why Mr. Schiff is not to be considered an economist -- no original research or theory, no defended academic papers or dissertation, no publications in peer-reviewed media, among others. Please read those on my, your, and kevin's talk pages as well as here. Also in reviewing the archived talk for this article I see that many other economists, such as myself, have raised the same concern in the past long before me. Incidentally, why do you call me 'anonymous?' my ip is on everything I write, just as is your pseudonym. Is there something I don't understand about the logging here? As previously noted, it was not I but "kevin" who changed the template to infobox person and now that it is changed back it is at least for now economist again. Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin did that to compromise with you. You don't have an account and frequently fail to sign your comments. I don't want you to write "paragraphs" explaining what you think. I want you to cite sources that describe Schiff as not being an Austrian or an economist. If you're the only one to have an objection, you're new to Wikipedia and focus mainly on one article, and you write long paragraphs of original text to justify edit warring; you will get nowhere. Sorry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO TIMECHANGE: As I just indicated above, I am the first or only one to state that Mr. Schiff is not an economist. Please review the 3-pages of talk for this article, including the 2 archived pages. Moreover I also stated above that Mr. Schiff does not meet the criteria that I and other economists regularly use to determine whether to refer to an individual as an "economist" and Mr. Schiff does not fulfill any of those tests. I did not compel Kevin to make that change. He adopted a suggestion for compromise that I stated. If you are unhappy with that I suggest you direct your concern to Kevin. Back to the matter at hand: Why do you believe that Mr. Schiff is an economist and can you cite other recognized economists about whom there is no disagreement who would concur with your judgment. That is a useful test, peer acceptance. Having known and studied with many prominent Austrian economists I can tell you that despite broad and profound disagreements, none of us would say that Friedman, Samuelson, Fisher, or others, were "not economists" However I don't know of any trained and peer-published economist of any school who would call even a gifted commentator such as Mr. Schiff an "economist" merely because of his interest in and limited study of a variety of economic subjects. Please review the comments that I and others have made on this matter in the three pages of archived talk here. Thank you.

That's all just original research. It is all totally irrelevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO TIMECHANGE: Not true, there are standards by which one is called an economist and before you state that it is not relevant, I and the administration of Wikipedia expect you to read the voluminous carefully considered discussion on the topic. Please read all such discussion in the archive and any external sources you may need to consult. Or you could email acknowledged leaders of Austrian Economic thought such as Mario Rizzo at NYU and ask them to help you to understand the criteria for calling someone "economist." Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you have absolutely no understanding of Wikipedia policy. The fact that your arguments were discussed before and ultimately rejected does not help your case. It's not up to me to email Austrian economists of your choosing. It's up to you to explain your changes and create a consensus. You can't just say "I know Austrians who dislike him", "I'm an economist, trust me", and so on. That is called original research and has no validity here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TO TIMECHANGE: You include much unproductive personal derogation in your talk and comments. I did not state that I do not like Mr. Schiff. I have posted at length on the objective standards by which people are called an "economist" and why Mr. Schiff does not fit the bill. I am not aware that these arguments were rejected previously. Somebody just ignored them, put in a later edit after those who disagree were no longer working on or viewing the page. Your unsupported inference as to the history of the text on this article does not change the fact that Mr. Schiff is not considered an economist by the vast majority of economists of any school, Austrian or otherwise.Thank you.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't just take your word for it. Wikipedia's motto is "verifiability, not truth". In contrast to regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. Many prominent economists come from a background in mathematics, business, political science, law, sociology, or history. Economic analysis may be applied throughout society, as in business, finance, health care, and government, but also to such diverse subjects as crime, education, the family, law, politics, religion, social institutions, war, and science. It's not hard to find a few sources that call Schiff an economist. Because this has been here a long time, it will have to be discussed before an new, unregistered editor removes it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TIMECHANGE: you said "Many prominent economists come from a background in mathematics, business, political science, law, sociology, or history." Many do, but they also meet some or all of the criteria I listed for what constitutes an economist -- original research, theoretical works, defense of thesis before jury of acknowledged economists, publications in peer-reviewed journals. These are similar to the tests applied in most academic fields. We are not talking about a professional license or legal permit. It is not my opinion, it is the consensus of all world economists. Mr. Schiff doesn't call himself an economist. He is an economic commentator, investment advisor, financial strategist and more but he is not an economist by any objective test you can describe. Clearly you do not understand this, whereas I coming from an academic background and in fact being an Austrian who studied and collaborated with many on the "Austrians" list here, am very familiar with the issue. Nonetheless I have looked back at the history of this article and I can tell you that box was not chosen by consensus. It was chosen by accident by an uninformed editor. I have no current intention of reverting it again because I am more focused on continuing to get the article in even better shape. I have made many constructive improvements here and the infobox is something that I view as more of a formal defect than a critical error of content at this point.24.151.19.17 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

KEVIN: See your talk page. The language in the first sentence was set before I came here. It's settled consensus so I undid your edit. Also please refrain from angry language and threats. Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox format

The anonymous editor who frequents this page wants to remove the economist infobox, or at least vandalize it, on the grounds that "Schiff is not an economist". In contrast to regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. Many prominent economists come from a background in mathematics, business, political science, law, sociology, or history. Economic analysis may be applied throughout society, as in business, finance, health care, and government, but also to such diverse subjects as crime, education, the family, law, politics, religion, social institutions, war, and science. It's not hard to find a few sources that call Schiff an economist. Because this has been here a long time, it will have to be discussed before an anonymous editor removes or alters it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

--REPLY: Please, you have no grounds for falsely attributing bad faith intention to my edit of the infobox.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

--To apply economic principles is not to be an economist any more than to apply various laws of physics would make one a physicist.

--He's a remarkable guy and a successful businessman, just not an economist. Why don't you create a different template if you're uncomfortable using this infobox for a securities dealer. The problem is with the template not with Mr. Schiff or the fact that he is a securities dealer.

--If you wish to create an article on Mr. Schiff that describes him as an economist, I think that article would look very different from the current one, which says he's a businessman and broker who voices his opinions in various media. I think such a page would do a disservice to Mr. Schiff, but it would be possible to write such a page.

"Because this has been here a long time, it will have to be discussed before an anonymous editor removes or alters it."(talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

--Irrelevant to the truth and maybe self-serving as well, I'm new here.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are in bad faith because you disagree with the existence of the infobox, and instead of requesting that it be changed or removed, you edit warred to add a non-existant "school". You have done this to make a point, not because your edits are valid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

REPLY: Your inference/accusation as to my motivation in editing this infobox is false and strikes me as rude and irrelevant to our joint task of improving this page. As I stated previously Schiff is a Securities Dealer, not an Economist. His own website describes him as a businessman and securities broker, not an economist. The infobox is more informative and gives a more accurate description of Schiff with his principal identity, Securities Broker, as the title. Any mismatch is due to the fact that some previous editor chose the inappropriate "economist" template for the infobox. I was unable to find any infobox template for businessman, broker, or anything closer to Schiff's principal occupation and achievements but if you know of one, I urge you to propose it. Mr. Schiff is a leader in the hard money investment business, and a man of remarkable achievement in that sphere, however he is not an economist, nor does he label himself as such.24.151.19.17 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not an inference, like your claim that I work for Schiff. It's an unambiguous fact that you were making a ridiculous edit to illustrate your contention that the infobox is inappropriate, in violation of WP:POINT. I'm frankly tired of dealing with your disruptive behavior. Everything you've posted here is original research. You aren't supposed to make huge changes without discussion. You'll just keep being reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

REPLY: I did not claim that you work for Schiff. I can't know that, just as you can not know my motivation for my edits, which I believe overall have immeasurably improved this article about a prominent securities and gold dealer. My removal of the header on the infobox was intended to get us to a neutral place where neither of our versions is shown, in order to stop the reversions while discussion as to a satisfactory compromise or consensus can be reached. I have no point of view on Mr. Schiff. My personal point of view as an editor with a doctorate in Economics and a sympathetic student of many of the Austrians, is that I do not like to see the term misapplied where it is inappropriate. Let's find a solution either with a more appropriate infobox or other constructive compromise. Thanks.24.151.19.17 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

>Note that on the page for Lew Rockwell, CEO of the von Mises Institute, and a much greater figure than Mr. Schiff in Austrian circles, the "infobox person" is used, NOT infobox economist.24.151.19.17 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

---

>Another alternative for Mr. Schiff's infobox would be "infobox libertarian" This strikes me as a good choice, since his libertarian principles underlie both his business approach and his public speaking message. What do you think of that?24.151.19.17 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I might accept that, as long as you have a source in which he calls himself a libertarian.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

---

>Do you have a source in which Mr. Schiff calls himself an Economist?

    http://www.europac.net/news/it_safe_resume_ignoring_prophets_doom_right
    http://www.europac.net/news/peter_schiff_how_he_would_fix_america
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncLTFoTFa824.151.19.17 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but I have already provided sources that call him one.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

> Please consider the links I gave, two from the Euro Pacific site. I have never seen a widely recognized economist refer to Mr. Schiff as an economist. He doesn't refer to himself as an economist.24.151.19.17 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources would take precedent over a primary source ie how he characterizes himself on his website etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---> Keithbob: How do you feel about using the "libertarian" infobox? Several of us objected to the "economist" format. A user, Kevin4262 proposed the "person" box as a compromise. This was reverted by "Times" and I believe that under the circumstances the "libertarian" box allows us to characterize Mr. Schiff's beliefs and mission in an accurate way, with references to the originators of his views, without incorrectly characterizing him as an "economist" which he is not. I have not seen any acknowledged economist of any school of thought refer to Mr. Schiff as an economist. He has no academic training in Economics, has done no original research in the field, has published no articles in peer refereed journals, and he does not call himself an economist. Can we put this to rest with the "Libertarian" box, filled in with Mr. Schiff's influences, etc?24.151.108.103 (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of the boxes but only following discussion and consensus rather than by edit warring. All you have to do is provide sources for his political orientation and influences.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

>In addition to the citations above, Newsweek: http://www.newsweekinternational.com/newsweek/2009/09/01/the-failure-caucus.html

    As to his influences, they are already listed in the current infobox, so the names and citations would be the same.
    I am also fine with the person infobox per Kevin's edit, but I believe the Libertarian version is more descriptive and will convey more information.24.151.108.103 (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My impression of Schiff is that he is known primarily as a investment advisor/expert or "economist" (loosely defined) and even his political work is in that context. So the current infobox seems relevant to me. Also I would say that this economist issue has been discussed here before and for me it is very simple: we just follow the WP guidelines and reflect what reliable sources say. If a preponderance of sources call him an economist then we reflect that in the article regardless of our personal analysis of what the academic definition of an economist is. If only a few sources refer to him as an economist then we feature that term less prominently and so on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Keithbob: Two thoughts regarding your message: First, an investment advisor or expert is not the same thing as an economist. Schiff is unquestionably considered an investment advisor by self-description and widespread references of others. Second, I have not found highly-regarded, established sources that refer to him as an economist. Apparently Newsweek and sources cited on Euro Pacific's website do refer to him as a Libertarian. For what it's worth I believe that all "Austrian Economists" are Libertarians but not all Libertarians are Economists (of any school.)Ipse 23:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

--TIME TO RESOLVE THIS: I believe that the time has come to try to find an acceptable resolution to the disagreement about the infobox format. Having reviewed all the material on this and archived talk pages, I would prefer "libertarian" but would also accept Kevin's compromise of "person." I do not think that "economist" is supported by the facts or credible cited sources. Would those who care to participate in this matter please now voice their views? I would like to try to reach consensus before the 31st. Thank you.24.151.25.89 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional citations calling Mr. Schiff a libertarian

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2009/09/failure_caucus.html
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/02/21/peter-schiff-how-he-would-fix-america
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/magazine/economic-doomsday-predictions.html
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-15/markets/30001066_1_ben-bernanke-peter-schiff-big-government
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/11/how-far-would-p.html

Kevin and Times, and any others -- in light of this evidence and discussion, please state whether you have any objection to using the "libertarian" infobox? Thank you.24.151.25.89 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

I've now protected this article as this edit war is getting close to getting out of hand, as indeed are the discussions on this talk page.

I strongly recommend that you open this discussion up to the wider community, via a request for comment or third opinion. GedUK  12:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

TO Ged UK: Actually, despite the hostility and suspicion directed at me, I think the article is in good shape now and is far better than when I arrived here a short time ago, largely due to tightening up sourcing and language and several reorganizations of the content.24.151.19.17 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest an RfC since this economist issue keeps coming up again and again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Although it has been raised before, I do think that there are new definitions and additional reputable citations to consider now, so I would ask whether after reviewing the complete file anyone still believes that Mr. Schiff is best characterized as an economist. If there is still reasoned disagreement then there would be no alternative but to invite additional review.24.151.25.89 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not opposed to the IP's stated positions regarding the infobox. Obviously, further comments are welcome.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To acknowledge your thoughtful cooperation, Time, I have now created an ID and will no longer be the IP guy. Are the others also OK with the Libertarian box? If so, I will make the change and transfer Mr. Schiff's influences and the other data now shown in the "economist" box. Thanks.SPECIFICO (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not an Economist

Peter Schiff holds a bachelor's degree in Finance & Accounting from University of California Berkley.

Peter Schiff is a business person, stock broker, and television commentator-- this article refers to him as an Economist. This is a falsehood.

His "field" is securities trading, not financial economics. I am told he does not even use analytics in his business.

He uses pre-conceived slogans with economic lingo and acts like the dollar will implode and the US is going under, going so far as to about US manufacturing ability despite all available data, simply so he can sell more foreign securities and gold. It's a great propaganda game he has going on.

In short: Peter Schiff is a fraud, and so is this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.100.98 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with much of the foregoing. Moreover edits such as correcting the areas of Schiff's study from "financial economics" to "finance and accounting" have repeatedly been undone by apparent promoters of Schiff, despite the fact that Schiff's own website lists "finance and accounting." There's nothing to stop a stockbroker with a business degree from presenting his views on any subject including economics, but misstating/revising his credentials is not the mission of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.19.17 (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC) \\

Implying that if I held a degree in biology but was a rockstar, I wouldn't actually be a musician? Epigrammed (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FOR COMMENT -- Please See "person libertarian" infobox on my sandbox page.

Interested parties, please review my attempt at the person-libertarian infobox on my sandbox. Per our discussion I will place it in the article tomorrow if there are no further comments. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPECIFICO/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

KJMonkey edits -- Krugman paragraph

KJ, I think the Krugman piece was more accurately conveyed by "quoted and referred to" language. That is how the source was structured. and I ask you to revert your edit and restore that language. "Quoted as saying" is less specific and also may suggest that Mr. Schiff's quote is inaccurate or unsourced, which is not the case. Also, having accepted your edit to remove the label "Nobel Prize-winning" I removed the similarly loaded label "Keynesian" and you should not have replaced it without seeking consensus. I ask you to revert your recent addition of the label "Keynesian." Thank you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we should remove Krugman's comment that Schiff is an "Austrian/Ron Paul" type.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That was in the source. The other labels are from Wikipedia editors. I agreed with KJ that the Nobel label was gratuitous, but I don't think any other label adds anything to Krugman's words. As an alternative or compromise approach, I could see removing "economist" however since Krugman's name is linked to his own article if anyone cares to look him up.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing "economist" would be absurd, as that is what Krugman is known for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving economist, so if you like it I think there's no reason to fuss with it.

First I would like to applaud your initiative in adding the Schiff quote and other transitory language to bridge the new sentence I had added to the article. To address your preference for the "quoted and referred to" language, although you are correct that this language does convey the structure used in the source, my primary objection was to how a casual reader of this article may read the language. The prose to me seems clunky and redundant; it is like describing someone as both jovial and happy in the same breath. So instead of having John Doe seemed especially happy and jovial today, the prose would read better as A jovial John Doe was especially happy today. Likewise, I condensed the "quoted and referred to" language to just "quoted... as stating" because the verb "quoted" agrees with the quotation following it and omitted "referred to" because it is already implied by inserting Krugman's referenced Schiff quote adjacent to Krugman's claim. Also, I have a minor quibble with assuming that the Schiff quote is 100% accurate as the source is an opinion piece so there is an inherent chance that a misquote could occur although perhaps not likely given the editorial process of the newspaper organization. Had Krugman, in addition to transcribing the Schiff quote, had added the link to the video interview where the read could attest to the veracity of the quotation then I would have no objection with assuming the quote was accurate. To address the "Keynesian" label I used for Krugman, it seemed the most appropriate term for the context of Krugman's claim and his caricature of Schiff as a "Austrian/Ron Paul" type. The earlier edit using "Nobel prize winning" in preface to Krugman's claim that Schiff and his Austrian economic view was wrong seemed to violate WP:NPOV in giving undue weight to Krugman's assertion that Schiff, and by extension the Austrian school, is wrong. As Krugman describes himself as a Keynesian and Schiff describes himself as an Austrian and as the Keynesian and Austrian economic schools have their own respective Nobel laureates, "Nobel prize winning" becomes problematic in the context of Krugman's criticism because it implies the Austrian view that Schiff holds is wrong. Using the word "Keynesian" is not loaded as you suggest because it is descriptive of Krugman's perspective and goes to clarify his assertion that the Austrian economic view is incorrect. Additionally, in the Schiff article infobox it is stated that one of Schiff's opponents is John Maynard Keynes who founded the Keynesian economic school. According to WP:UNDERLINK guidelines, it would be appropriate to make relevant connections to Keynesian economics article because that will help readers understand the Schiff article more fully. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that "quoted and referred" is redundant in the way you suggest. Writers often refer without quoting. The alternative you substituted sounds to me as if Krugman might have attributed an unsourced idea to Mr. Schiff. I don't think anyone disagrees that the "Nobel" tag is gratuitous here. As to "Keynesian" it's unfortunately one of those labels that has come to mean different things to various people and it seems mildly problematic to use it as one would use "left-handed" pitcher or "double-edged" blade. However the quoted and referred point I do think is significant and worth reverting to.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I searched the phrase "quoted and referred" in Google and found support for their usage together. However, I do not find this phrase used to introduce a quotation. Herein lies the redundancy. The way the phrase was used seem to suggest you are using two different words to introduce the quotation; only those that have actually looked at the citation would likely understand the phrase as describing the structure of the cited article. As for "Keynesian", it is possible that the term could have a negative connotation among those adherrents of other economic schools but this is similiar to how the labels of M.D. and D.O. may have different connotations depending on who you ask in the American medical community. For the lay user of Wikipedia, there is no sitewide consensus on the connotation of "Keynesian" and there is a likelihood the user would click on the Keynesian school article or the Paul Krugman article without any bias due to describing Paul Krugman as a Keynesian economist. Again, the Keynesian school article had not been mentioned prior to this reference and it is wholly appropriate to link in this context of contrasting economic views.K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, even among economists there is no common understanding of the label "Keynesian." As to the other point, you haven't convinced me. The English language meaning is clear. I don't expect a readers to assume that the writer has needlessly used redundant language. To the extent that precise language raises any question in the reader's mind, the remedy would be to check the source, not to use less clear description.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm tending to agree with Kjmonkey on the wording issue; while writers often refer without quoting, I think we can take it as given that writers don't quote without referring. When Kjmonkey's version uses "quoted" while getting rid of "referred to", I don't think we're really losing any information. That said, the phrase "quoted as stating" (taking out the prepositional phrase for clarity, of course) seems a bit awkward to me. How about something like "Krugman quoted Schiff's December 2009 statement:"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔

I am open to using different prose. Writ, I think your suggestion leaves a little more to be desired but it is concise and I would prefer to use it given the current set of suggestions. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that Writ proceed to substitute the change as proposed above, since we all agree it's better than the current version. Also, it's not clear to me that the sentence following is related to the one about the monetary base. It's on a different subject and from a later time. Consider removing or relocating to the appropriate position in the article.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the "Keynesian" bit, at first glance, I agreed with SPECIFICO that it wasn't really necessary, preferring the version that just called him an economist. I know some people who have a pretty visceral reaction to the word "Keynesian", so I can see that part of the argument pretty well. But call a spade a spade: after glancing over the Krugman article, it seems there's some support in sources for calling him a Keynesian. After some thought, I agree with Kjmonkey that the fact that Krugman refers to the Austrian school makes a mention of his own school relevant. I guess the point is: SPECIFICO, is your opposition to "Keynesian" because you don't agree that he's a Keynesian, or because "Keynesian" is now a loaded term? If the former, then we probably still need to work that out, as I'm not 100% sold on it myself. If the latter, then I say we just bite the bullet and use it, because it seems accurate and relevant to me so far. What do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Writ. My answer is: Both. Let's just say economist.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with leaving the sentence as is. I have no issue with leaving the "Austrian/Ron Paul type" label that Krugman uses to criticize Schiff, but Krugman is making a generalization here that leaves the reader no other interpretation than to accept Krugman's premise and conclusion. Because A, ergo B. If we use just the label "economist" for Krugman and do not identify the branch of theory that he identifies with, it would give undue weight to his criticism of Schiff and his Austrian economic leanings because the lead for the Schiff article does not describe Schiff as a trained economist whereas Krugman is a professional economist writer. So to use the earlier analogy, if Krugman's view of the Austrian school can be boiled down to Because A, ergo B, then Austrians may view the Krugman premise as Because A, ergo C. In otherwords, Krugman says Austrians are wrong and Austrians view their position as correct. Hence, if we accept the disparaging context of Krugman's label and reproduce it verbatim in the Schiff article, it must be prefaced giving context to Krugman's self described leanings. To allay SPECIFICO's concern that Krugman does not consider himself a Keynesian, I performed a google search for "krugman keynesian" and looking at several of the top five results would strongly imply that Krugman holds a Keynesian worldview. Here a couple that I was able to glean:
I April 25, 2012 - The Big Wrong - "And now the results are in: Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong — at vast human cost."
II undated - WHY AREN’T WE ALL KEYNESIANS YET? - " I have often wondered why Keynes - unlike, say, Freud - has never become a pop cultural icon."
I will reiterate this point again; since the Schiff article identifies John Maynard Keynes as an opponent of Schiff's, and since Krugman seems to identify with Keynes, ergo prefacing Krugman's criticism of Schiff and all the "Austrian/Ron Paul types" by using the label "Keynesian economist" is both descriptive and balanced. I see no evidence in wikipedia or wikitionary to show keynesian as a generally accepted derisive term; I can see that it may be derisive among those who hold an opposing economic view either as an adherrent to an opposing school or informally by not accepting Keynesian implications on government policies. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, Keynes is NOT an opponent of Mr. Schiff's, having passed away long before Mr. Schiff was born. As to whether Keynes' name belongs in the infobox, that's not what we're discussing here. Krugman's body of scholarly work goes far beyond the topic of the cited column and far beyond the issues with which Keynes is popularly identified. One need not pin a label on Krugman in order to evaluate this column which is merely making the point that Mr. Schiff's prediction of hyperinflation at a specific time turned out to be incorrect. The label is loaded and, as your comments demonstrate, is easily misunderstood by those who are only somewhat familiar with the history of economic thought. The label should be pared to "economist." Please also have a look at my question about the sentence you inserted following the Krugman cite and see what you think? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, without the "Austrian/Ron Paul types" label, there would be no issue to using the Krugman critique. If we choose to go this route, using "economist" without clarifying the school of economics he associates himself to would remain an issue for the reason of undue weight that I illustrated earlier. As for drawing the conclusion that the label is loaded, I tried to illuminate the situation where any topic of interest on wikipedia may find itself subject to derision, namely by those disagree with the claims made by a competing philosophy. Take for instance the label "American"; it is ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia and though some readers may see this as derisive given their background and association with Americans, many others may not view this term derisively. For those English speaker who may not know what the term American means (say an Australian elementary school student), they might click on the American link and read the article on the United States. In general, as long as the link does not redirect to a non-neutral article or one where there are contoversies surrounding the subject, using a descriptive label can enhance the reader's experience. Last time I checked the Keynesian school article, I did not see any controversial material that would lead me to conclude that Keynesian was a controversial term. Perhaps the way to address both our objections would be to rewrite the sentence as follows: In December, 2011, Paul Krugman said that Schiff's approach to economics is incorrect because an "explosion of inflation" did not follow a tripling of the monetary base. I find this approach lacking. Retaining the sentence as presently constituted with "Keynesian economist" and "Austrian/Ron Paul types" would be net beneficial to the reader as they can click and read more about the "Keynesian" and "Austrian" schools which to my mind is consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue your choice of retaining both "economist" and "Austrian/Ron Paul types" while omitting "Keynesian", please pursue WP:RFC. As for your question about the sentence I had inserted originially, please repeat it as I have a hard time following the issue. My intention in adding the sentence was to supplement Krugman's critique in the source that cites Schiff's missed timeframe as his contention for the failure of Austrian economics. The sentence indicates Schiff's contention that his view is still correct but the extended timeframe would lead to bigger issues down the road. I concede that perhaps there's a better way to bridge the two sentences, but I do believe they are related and should be expressed in some way.K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As editors, we don't want to try to juxtapose and bridge unrelated sentences from different times on different subjects. Please move that to a different location and develop the content to which it relates.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

--->KJ, what do you think "Keynesian" means?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please pursue WP:RFC if you strongly perceive the sentences are unrelated. As for your perception that the two are from different times, for me December 2011 (Krugman) and March 2012 (Schiff) seem contemporary to me. As for my interpretation of Keynesian, it is hardly as important as my interpretation of wikipedia community policy. But if you insist, Keynesian seems to describe adherrents to the Keynesian economic school which uses models to interpret the allocation of resources in an economy and prescribe government intervention to advocate for the use of under used resources. Even if my interpretation here of keynesian is not adequate or even incorrect, the points that I made regarding your proposed use of "economist" and "Austrian/Ron Paul types" remain relevant here. I added the new sentence for Schiff because I read the previous sentence that had synthesized the material from the Schiff quote and Krugman's opinion, proceeded to clarify Krugman's claim in the first sentence and went to Google to search and see if Schiff had any response to Krugman's opinion. In otherwords, I was applying the Wiki veracity process to what I read, made edits that I thought would bring conformity to the policy and added new material based on new sources found. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

KJ, thanks for the reply. Let me be perfectly direct and please do not take offense, but you do not understand the economic principles entailed by this issue, nor do you seem to understand what Keynes or "Keynesian" are about (2 separate things.) Similarly you do not seem to understand that the mention of interest rates in the sentence you appended is not related to the mention of interest rates in Schiff's interview quote, nor to the price inflation issue, which in the first sentence relates to the inflation of the monetary base. I'm sorry but nothing you're saying makes any sense here and you've made the article worse. You're editing outside your competence and it's not appropriate for you to try to force your view on the article or to substitute google strategies for detailed expertise in the subject. Please take a step back. You are weakening this important article.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that you go ahead and state your underlying assumptions and refrain from spurious accusations. Is it not true that Krugman identifies himself with the Keynesian school? Does it not seem that Krugman's use of the phrase "Austrian/Ron Paul types" come across as disparaging and perhaps libelious? These are questions wiki editors should ask regardless of competence to prevent undue weights with material that might be controversial or violate WP:BLP. As to my competence of the subject matter, with your input on my assumptions I can go and gain better competence of the subject if indeed my understanding proves inadequate to bridge material in the Schiff article. The core issue here is verifiablility; do I have enough reliable sources that refers to Krugman as a keynesian? It would appear to me that I have enough sources to proceed given the citations of Krugman's articles I made earlier. In this regard, it would not matter what you nor I thought keynesian meant because the wikipedia test is verifiablility and not truth and verily Krugman does identify with the keynesian school. The keynesian label is an issue of wiki policy and not of competence. Again, I would ask you seek consensus with the greater community by pursuing WP:RFC if feel strongly with your position. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with everything Kjmonkey has said, but it is SPECIFICO that is not making sense, and who should refrain from bullying and personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this has gotten way out of hand; everybody needs to take a step back, drink some tea (coffee, etc. according to preference), and chill the eff out. It is one word. This is not a big deal; we are seriously making mountains out of molehills. The phrase "austrain/ron paul types" is not libelous. I mean, really. I don't see any bullying, and what might (might) pass as personal attacks have been relatively evenly distributed, so let's lay off that line of inquiry and stick to the content, shall we? I really don't follow Kjmonkey's points about undue weight; I don't see how the word affects the weight of Krugman's quote-in-a-quote one way or the other. It's just additional information that provides an interesting contrast between his and Schiff's views on things. That said, Kjmonkey did provide some pretty convincing evidence that calling Krugman a Keynesian is not a mischaracterization (even though he says that he doesn't agree with everything Keynes said). It's relevant. So, let's just drop the stick, let the friggin' thing stay, and move on. It's really not that important in the grand scheme of things (the scheme doesn't even have to be that grand, really). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The way to settle disputes like this is to refer to reliable sources and to accepted practice in other articles. Newspapers quoting Krugman frequently describe him as Nobel prize winner, seldom as Keynesian. If you look at how economists are described in Wikipedia articles, the are not usually prefixed with neo-classical or Keynesian. E.g. See how Milton Friedman is described in articles: sometimes as Nobel laureate, never as 'neo-classical economist'. LK (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm down with that, too (for what it's worth). As I said, it's not a big deal either way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my original proposal -- just remove the pointless label "Keynesian." Does anyone now object to that? If we are at consensus, Writ, could you make that edit. The appended non-sequitur sentence still needs to be relocated or removed as well.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until we hear from Kjmonkey again before I do that; I've made the other change, though. I haven't looked close enough at that new sentence thing to form an opinion yet. 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input LK. I don't doubt there is any controversy about the reliability of the sources that call Krugman a Keynesian; as I referenced above, Krugman does not shy away from the association. I also had a chance to look at the current wiki article for Paul Krugman and it points to another source that has himself affirming "I’m just a Keynesian, willing to follow the logic of my analysis." Also you make a good point about looking to accepted practice in other articles and it seems true that newspapers do frequently preface a Krugman comment or observation with "Nobel laureate" but I tend to think this is because "Nobel prize" is more familiar to the general audience that newspapers sell to. I also don't discount that there may be some professional courtesy element in the implicit "Nobel" praise from newspapers because he is a regular op-ed commentator for the New York Times. But we ought to remember wikipedia does not purport to be a newspaper; instead we should look to the existing articles on wikipedia for guidance with editing style because such articles are representative of consensus on accepted styles/conventions among the broader wikipedia community. If you do a search for the phrase "keynesian economist" in wikipedia, there seems to me many precedents for referring to an economist by their closest school affiliation in the context of writing wikipedia articles. The Inflationism article refers to Krugman as a Keynesian economist: "...Keynesian economists such as Paul Krugman." The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 also refers to Krugman as a Keynesian: "...Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman." The Chartalism article refers to Krugman as a New-Keynesian: "...New Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman." There are more examples to glean if anyone cares to find. But let me point out here that there is no implicit derision in the use of "keynesian" to describe Krugman; on the contrary, often the label has been used to authoritative effect as in the Criticism of capitalism article: "...Keynesian economist Paul Krugman views this scenario in which individuals' pursuit of self-interest leads to bad results for society as a whole." All this should be illustrative of what I had mentioned earlier; we use these descriptive labels in wikipedia because they aid the reader in understanding the article they are reading. I like using examples so bear with me for one more. Compare these two sentences: The teacher was frustrated with the student and The impatient teacher was frustrated with the student. Let's say for sake of example that both sentences are true. In the first sentence it is clear as day what is happening; that is, the teacher is frustrated and the student is the cause of that frustration. At least at first glance it seems to be the case. Since the second sentence is true and, again for sake of example, equally descriptive of the situation and the only difference being the use of the adjective impatient to label the teacher, we might question our earlier conviction that the student was the cause of the frustration and instead ascribe the teacher's frustration to their own impatience with the implication that a patient teacher would not be frustrated with a student navigating the learning process. To return back to the Krugman sentence, I see a similar dynamic with using the "Austrians/ Ron Paul types." The sentence that I suggested earlier as controversy-free was In December, 2011, Paul Krugman said that Schiff's approach to economics is incorrect because an "explosion of inflation" did not follow a tripling of the monetary base. Writ Keeper, you had thought "Austrian/Ron Paul types" was an interesting quote that would add an element of contrast but to my eyes has a more serious implication. In the earlier controversy-free sentence, what a reader would infer would be that Krugman claims Schiff was wrong because what Krugman thought Schiff claimed would happen did not materialize. This would be acceptable for a sentence in the "Peter Schiff:Reception" section. So you might ask how "Austrian/Ron Paul type" alters the sentence to make it controversial? First, there is no accepted general meaning for this phrase Krugman creates to label Schiff and frame his criticism of him. So the implied meaning that might be had is that "Austrian/Ron Paul" types have a flawed understanding of the economy because Schiff's prediction did not come to pass. Would Austrian economists accept Krugman's criticism of Schiff's predictions as sign of the failure of their theory? Do Schiff's actions invalidate whatever Ron Paul might be saying? Even if it's a quote from Krugman, the ambiguity of the phrase seemed out of place for the core of his criticism on Schiff. On the otherhand, if we preface Krugman with Keynesian economist, the context for the "Austrian/Ron Paul" label would be a disagreement in economic perspectives between Keynesian-leaning Krugman, Austrian-leaning Schiff, Austrian economists and Ron Paul-types (whatever that means). If we make the appropriate links to the Keynesian economics, Paul Krugman, and Austrian school articles and a reader were to look at each and return to the Krugman sentence, we could think it would make for a more interesting Peter Schiff article. To sum up, Writ Keeper I would like to see the "Keynesian economist"-"Austrian/Ron Paul types" version used. In the alternative, the Krugman sentence sans-labels. Also, I would like to go ahead and sign off on the removal of sentence SPECIFICO had issue with. I re-read the two sentences again and can see SPECIFICO's issue with inflation. I see that Krugman's critique was on Schiff's prediction of price inflation whereas my new sentence had Schiff describing the Fed Funds rate. My insistence that the sentence be used as a response to Krugman's statement was done with interpreting Schiff as saying because the Fed funds rate is being kept too low, it would continue to encourage the creation of new money that would eventually find itself putting upward pressure on prices. Of course I could not add a synthesized sentence of what I thought Schiff meant. What frustrates me deeply here is SPECIFICO being extremely opaque about his assumptions while I am trying to collaborate to improve this article by being transparent with my editorial process. Had you stated that your objection to the sentence was because it dealt with the Fed rate and not the consumer interest rates, I would not have found myself writing seemingly unproductively in a talk page and we could have made inroads to improving the article. All that being said, I think I found a new source that complements the Krugman sentence nicely. I will create a new section in this talk page and add the source. Hopefully another editor can take the lead and construct a sentence that bridges Krugman's critique with the Schiff response. My time is limited, I have other work that preoccupies my time outside wiki editing and so I may not visit this page for a while. Writ Keeper, you've done a great job being our 3O. I hope you take my comments to mind and I trust that you can mediate this topic to an equestrian conclusion. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 11:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Equestrian? :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 23:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

At the point where we are now in the article, I think that removing the "Austrian/Ron Paul" is probably an acceptable compromise to all parties. What do you think, Specifico? It looks to me that, if we take that part out (while maintaining the rest in its current state, also keeping the "Keynesian" label out), we reach a pretty legible paragraph without losing any really important details. The major thrust of the paragraph is supposed to be a criticism of his views and predictions, along with his response; the categorization of his critic and himself is secondary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 'economist Krugman' and 'Schiff's approach' thanks. Incidentally, there seem to be several "citation needed" tags in this article. Shall we agree that we can all try to find proper sources within the next 48 hours and remove the content for which none are found?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A source to use for Schiff's response to Krugman

Please look at this source dated from January 2012 (a month after the Krugman article). Hopefully someone can add Schiff's indirect response to Krugman as a sentence in the Krugman paragraph. Schiff's interview on Yahoo's The Daily Ticker K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 11:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's latest edit

I disagree with SPECIFICO's justification for this deletion; Schiff is clearly responding to a line of criticism that has been employed against him by Krugman as well as by other critics. There's no rule that says Schiff must specifically mention the specific NYT piece we cite in order to cite his response to this specific criticism. I also wish SPECIFICO would respond to the comments left for him in the above discussion; given that he has time to edit the article, he should have time to respond to fellow editors whose consensus he is holding back.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this was already brought up on the TP, and SPECIFICO failed to discuss it either before or after it was added to the article (even though his edit summary is itself a warning not to revert without discussion). The changing of "argued" to "stated" may imply that Krugman is merely stating a fact--one which discredits not merely Schiff, but also "Austrian/Ron Paul" economists in general.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can say for sure whether it is or isn't in response, but I do think that we should have that sentence in there. Perhaps just removing "In response," might do the trick, or something to that effect. It should probably be worked on, but it's not irrelevant; Schiff has clearly responded to the concerns, whether it's specifically to Krugman or not. Perhaps something like, "In response to similar questions, ..." or something like that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "in response, Schiff reiterated" should be removed or revised. Perhaps we could even specify Schiff's view that the European crisis has delayed more serious problems in the US. He's discussed the inflation issue many times, questioning the CPI statistics and noting that the economy is still poor and inflation is thus more apparent in food and gas prices.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mr. Schiff's comments to Harry Blodgett were perfectly valid, so why not expand on PS' remarks to Blodgett, also giving Blodget's somewhat confrontational initial remarks, which give context to PS' apt handling of the issues. Actually I think that both Blodget and PS' reply to him go beyond what's in the Krugman piece. As I read it, Krugman is just making the simple point that the neo-Austrian doctrine that a huge increase in the monetary base quickly gives rise to inflation has proven false under that current conditions. My personal take on Krugman in this instance is that he is simply saying that theory proved false and we need to revise it to continue developing our understanding of the situation. He is certainly not making what would be the unsupportable and in my view false claim that the current experience has proven the correctness of an opposing theory. The only claim he's making here is that PS' model was proven incorrect. To the extent that PS revises his model in the Blodget interview, PS is implicitly agreeing with Krugman. PS: Times, don't feel too badly I take time out for dinner without immediate follow up here, I hope you will understand.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Krugman sentence again.

Two editors have deleted the word "stated" and replaced it with "argued" in the presentation of Paul Krugman's article about PS' inflation prediction. The English word "stated" is neutral and descriptive. The word "argue" imputes connotations that are much stronger and not necessarily present here. Stated, wrote, said. Not argued.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Krugman claimed that Schiff's entire approach to economics is invalid. It's standard practice to use words like "argued" or "opined" over words like "stated" or "noted" in such contexts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Just stick to the fact. K made a statement. We're not endorsing it. You can say state, wrote, said, or other descriptive word.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not standard policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's Mom Medicare Statement

TIME: I think this statement by PS is significant and belongs in the article. PS has distinguished himself on many issues by stepping away from common partisan positions to develop consistent libertarian policy views. The content now reverted is typical of PS' radio broadcasts, which are central to his work and his message. I believe that content belongs in the article, and tried to word it compactly and in the appropriate place. Please restore, with edits if you think language can be improved.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of it. We already have his criticism of Ryan's plan. Why would we also need his commentary related to Ryan's mother? Outside of your typical POV-pushing, of what relevance is this piece of WP:RECENTISM? How much weight or attention does it deserve? Why is it different than any other statement he has made on his show?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Finding Citations, Removing Unsourced Material.

Yesterday I suggested we delete any content that remains unsourced by tomorrow evening, i.e. 24 hours from now. I have been looking for citations for the material with missing or dead links. I hope others have been doing so as well. I will remove any material that remains unsourced tomorrow evening.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't do that unilaterally, especially since you just tagged something yesterday.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TTAAC that its not appropriate to give a 24hr ultimatum and then remove uncited content. Better to place a cite needed tag and then wait 2-4 weeks to see if they get cited. Editors are not on WP everyday and they have many articles on their watchlist. Its great that you are looking for sources yourself and tightening up the article. Good work. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TTAC knows I always go with his ideas when they are valid. As to the sources, there are two remaining. The one in the infobox has no source, but doesn't seem untrue so I am reluctant to remove the statement. The other one really does need to be sourced: "In a March 2009 speech Schiff said that it would be impossible for the U.S. debt to China to be repaid unless the U.S. Dollar's value is substantially diluted through inflation...In September 2009 Schiff said..."bear market rally".[36][citation needed]" I can't find the source, although in this case as well, I think the statement is very likely true.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SPECIFICO for your vigilance and efforts to improve the article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

I added extra information about Schiff's reponse to Shedlock on his radio show. Further to this, I added a reference for this to a recording of it that is posted on Youtube. Why then does both, the information and the link, get removed from this page? (See the page history) Can someone please have a look at this and explain? Thanks. The joyous one (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Things should not be added to BLPs based on youtube videos. FurrySings (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding YouTube they can sometimes be used as reliable sources but only if they are RELIABLE and if they are not a copy right violation. The YouTube you posted was a copy right violation, (if its the same one I say yesterday in the history--You could give us a diff and that would make this conversation more precise) because the video was not created by the person/company who posted it. If CBS posts a video of one of their news shows, there is no copy vio and in most cases it's a reliable source. But if a private party records a CBS news show and posts it on YT it's a copy vio and WP will not allow it. Please take a look at WP:YOUTUBE for more info. Cheers -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So, if videos are posted by people other than the original creator or copyright holder, those links should not be used, right? If so, why is there an other link in this article that reference a video not posted by the owners: "Peter Schiff's accurate forecast of credit card market trouble", current reference 32?The joyous one (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you have identified another link that should be removed. FurrySings (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Here is the link to the copy vio policy for WP in case anyone wants to look at it: WP:COPYVIO. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits

2 editors have done a lot of good clean-up and tightening. Aside from restoring the mediated Krugman language, I have two other thoughts:

• Revision as of 23:42, 13 December 2012 [9]

Karpouzi (talk | contribs) (→‎2010 U.S. Senate campaign: rv random quote)

The deleted quote is characteristic of Mr. Schiff’s presentation of his views and he is stating why he believes he is qualified to be U.S. Senator and describing his economic policy stance. I think the quote should be re-inserted.

• Revision as of 02:31, 14 December 2012 [10]

Karpouzi (talk | contribs)(reorder)

The quote from Peter’s brother Andrew has been deleted. It is well-sourced and I think it is an important primary statement as to the public reaction to Mr. Schiff’s message, particularly after the financial crisis appeared to be easing. I think this should not be deleted.

I'm afraid that removing those two quotes weakens the article. Please consider re-inserting. '''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits to Reception section

Hi folks, today I innocentlyand absentmindedly made some edits to the Reception section completely forgetting how contentious this article and that section can be on this talk page. My apologies. I believe my new version is a better, more NPOV, summary of Schiff's supporters and detractors.... but I'm just one person and I should have discussed it here first. OK, should I revert? or can we salvage some of my changes? SPECIFICO has, in an commendable effort to avoid conflict, approached me respectfully on my talk page and asked that I return the Krugman sentence back to its original consenus state per prior talk page discussion in Sept about it, because it took a long time (and I think a third opinion) to get a consensus. I am very willing to do that... however...........when I look at the prior talk page discussion I see that the final consensus was:

• • I think that removing the "Austrian/Ron Paul" is probably an acceptable compromise to all parties. What do you think, Specifico? It looks to me that, if we take that part out (while maintaining the rest in its current state, also keeping the "Keynesian" label out), we reach a pretty legible paragraph without losing any really important details. The major thrust of the paragraph is supposed to be a criticism of his views and predictions, along with his response; the categorization of his critic and himself is secondary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. 'economist Krugman' and 'Schiff's approach' thanks. Incidentally, there seem to be several "citation needed" tags in this article. Shall we agree that we can all try to find proper sources within the next 48 hours and remove the content for which none are found?SPECIFICO (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• After a consensus discussion on Sept 27 the Krugman sentence should have been: According to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, Schiff's "Austrian/Ron Paul type" approach to economics led him to incorrectly predict hyperinflation in the United States by 2010-2011.
• But today, (before my edits) the Krugman sentence was this long winded, expanded, paragraph: In December 2011, Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman quoted Peter Schiff's statement from December 2009: "I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment." Krugman noted that inflation had instead remained low, and he concluded that Schiff's type of economic "model is all wrong" since it predicts that a tripling of the monetary base, such as had just occurred, must lead to "dire effects on the price level".[49] In January 2012, Schiff stated that a US debt crisis and high inflation had merely been delayed by government policy.[50] In November 2012, Krugman again criticized Schiff for predicting high inflation and high interest rates in the US.[51]
• Now... after my edits the Krugman sentence looks like this: Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has repeatedly criticized Schiff for his 2009 predictions of a "currency crisis". According to Krugman, inflation has remained low and Schiff's economic "model is all wrong".[49] According to Schiff his predictions for a US debt crisis and high inflation have been temporarily delayed by government economic policy.[50] [51]

So do you like my changes? Or should I change it back to the consensus version on Sept 27th? or to the version that was there before my edits? Let me know what you want to do. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob. Are you comfortable reverting to the consensus language from September now, with or without the Nobel Prize added? Personally I don't favor the Nobel Prize label but I do feel that the remainder should stay as negotiated at that time. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits Thank you, Keithbob. I am not comfortable deviating from the mediated language from September. In particular, by quoting Mr. Schiff's words it removes any doubt that he did make the prediction and that Krugman is not attacking a straw man or twisting PS' words. I also think the "nobel prize" tag is gratuitous.

There have been many other small edits in the past few days. I am uncomfortable with some of them, particularly ones which remove Mr. Schiff's own words (e.g. about his 2010 candidacy) I also am not convinced that the RT website is a WP:RS. I will take a closer look at the other changes if I have time in the next day or two. Anyone else have comments on the recent edits?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no one is responding, please go ahead and adjust as you see fit. I trust your judgement :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't believe RT, according to wikipedia itself, the second most watched foreign news channel after the BBC? Seriously, someone remove this biased dingleberry's ability to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.188.96 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Schiff's wife and PepperChovy

A new editor has been inserting content about Schiff's alleged wife. I have removed it, as have others. I wanted to let editors know that I am in coversation with Pepperchovy at his user page talk in case you want to look in on the conversation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When I do a Google search I only come up with forums and talk pages which are not reliable per WP:RS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources from Schiff himself (if there are any to be found) should be enough to verify this, since it is not contentious and not unduly self-serving. LK (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter Schiff Was Right - 'Taper' Edition

Before the Fed's announcement, Schiff was arguing that the Fed wouldn't taper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tak9ODlBJgM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to establish the importance of this item and to base article text on it, WP requires you to find a secondary WP:RS reference for such text. Without such a citation, your edit should be reversed and the text removed from the article. Please find a secondary discussion of this material. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit of the article to be reversed. I have only brought it up on this talk page for discussion regarding inclusion. If anyone cares to find secondary references they are invited to. You could always go to the sources that feature in the video, for example CNBC [[11]]. It should probably be included in the article as it is notable similarly to Schiff's predictions of the financial crash of 2008 in that the mainstream media laughed at him and waved him off as a kook but in the end they all had egg on their faces and Schiff proved (as he does regularly) that his understanding of the fundamentals trumps mainstream economist propaganda. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Schiff's claim to have been right regarding the Fed tapering QE should be included, as it is a good example of Pete's pattern of pretending he's always right when it looks like he may be so but ignores the truth when reality makes him look ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.27.69 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Category Conservatism in the United States

"Category:Conservatism in the United States" relevant - Schiff refers to himself as libertarian conservative[12].--Polmandc (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

On minimum wage

The sentence: "In March, 2011, he stated that the U.S. should abolish the corporate income tax and the home mortgage interest deduction on personal income tax.[32]" does not belong in this section.Conservativeacct (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it. Famspear (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Minimum wage

The statement "you are worth what you are worth" appears twice. Once in discussing the views on minimum wages and once in the broadcasting chapter. It should appear only once. Please choose where and then lets work together to select proper language. עדירל (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what you disagree with. As there is a dispute on what exactly was said I believe we should add a few words to make clear the context of what he said. I am basing my edit on [13]. עדירל (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit again. If you disagree with something please state exactly with what and we can discuss. עדירל (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In YouTube...

Schiff complains about the present article --Cesar Tort 16:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That explains all the recent edits. Ravensfire (talk)

I'm out

Just to mention that I'm not going to edit this article again! Getting too hot!! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be some off site canvassing going on, as noted above Thorrand (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Taxation section

There have been various edits to the Taxation section, most of which have been reverted in whole or part for a couple of reason. The main reason has been lack of reliable secondary sources or not following existing sources. That section has one source with Schiff's views from March 2011. If Schiff has different views now, that section can be updated, but we need to have good sources for it and stick to those sources. They also really need to be secondary sources though - not YouTube videos from Schiff. For the newer editors, please take a few minutes to ready the pages on Reliable Sources and Secondary sources I linked to above. Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Net Worth

I have submitted the following refernce for Net Worth as it is more specific to the topic of Net Worth in comparison to the existing reference: http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/ceo/peter-schiff-net-worth/ Dr.y.squirrel (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Responses

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view. As such, context specific heresay on a biographical page and opinions stated by critics should not be presented as having any bearing on the events of person's life. Impartiality is crucial to biography. Peter Schiff is a political pundit who says many controversial things. That does not give every editor here free reign to target a tiny portion of the vast amount of information out there to frame him in a negative light. An entire copied and pasted paragraph doing nothing but mentioning that so-and-so said such-and-such is irredeemably a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and while it may be true that some person says something or has a response to an unpopular opinion, that hardly qualifies as verifiable. This wiki page is rife with misleading information specifically targeted to defame this individual and is not only an inaccurate reflection of Schiff's views, but extremely lopsided in the shear amount of text dedicated to defamation as opposed to real information. Little is mentioned about many other significant events during Peter's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwilbs (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well this article had (and kinda still has) a very liberal and leftist tone to it, from the start trying to label Shiff a moron that got everything wrong (from a Keynesian POV). It's better now, but it's a typical bias of recurrence in en.Wikipedia, sadly. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My contention is simply that this is an encyclopedia entry, meant to be written from a neutral point of view. The selective editing, heresay, out of context non-biographical unrelated opinions on this page would obviously never pass the snuff test at any major publisher of encyclopedias. Much is also left out, all noteworthy person's should have an accurate and full account of any major life events and their own broad views, not other people's views on their views. Criticisms should be kept in a criticisms section and should not overdo it and exceed in length most of the other sections, that denotes a clear bias. They should be kept to a passing glance at the contentions and broad views of popular well-known critics, not copied and pasted exposés by every random joe out there.

Let's analyze this: We have a fellow who is in the business of selling gold, and when gold is at $1700.00 an ounce, he repeatedly predicts gold will rise to $5000.00 an ounce, which promotes his business. That is generally accurate, right? And then gold goes into a four year decline to under $1200 per ounce, the exact opposite of his predictions? Do I have that right, or am I in error? So, instead of tripling their money as predicted, gold buyers lost 40% of their investment? Is my math roughly correct? And then there are his repeated predictions for years of impending 30% to 40% inflation, and instead, inflation rates are instead hyper-low for years. Am I correct there? And then there are his repeated predictions for years of the collapse of the U.S. dollar, which has instead been robust and vibrant in recent years. Am I wrong about that? This is not a "Keynsian POV", these are the objective facts of economics over the past seven years. Do you claim that Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, is a "random Joe"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"We have a fellow who is in the business of selling gold" - Schiff founded SchiffGold (formerly Euro Pacific Precious Metals) in 2010 but has been recommending gold since at least sub $500/oz. . Anyway, just because he sells gold doesn't mean he can't believe in it. Plus, you are cherry-picking the recent high as a starting point.Bishopx13 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias

"On June 25, 2015, Peter Schiff released a video on his YouTube channel asking his "fans" to reedit his Wikipedia page to correct what he believed to be a strong liberal bias .[101] This explains the very biased and inaccurate description of his track record, lack of mention of his own securities sanctions and those of his firm.[102]"

Ironic that a line about bias ends with an incredibly biased, policy-violating statement about how the bias of editors "explains" something or other. Frankly, this last line doesn't even make sense, since it doesn't tell us which bias was expressed at what time by which side, and it's an opinion, not a fact. Finally, the "citation" links to a broker-checking website and not to a real source about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.176 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Why is the lead paragraph so huge? I propose to cut it back to one sentence. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Schiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100415153017/http://www.pri.org:80/business/giant-pool-of-money.html to http://www.pri.org/business/giant-pool-of-money.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629083542/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5786330387747098530 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5786330387747098530

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Position on the environment

I'm still waiting for coverage of Schiff's position on environmental issues. I heard him speak about his position on Rogan's show and was absolutely floored. He basically has the position of someone from the year 1492. Is Schiff aware of something called ecological science? Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Too officious

He is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer based in Westport, Connecticut. He is founder of Euro Pacific Canada Inc., a Canadian registered global brokerage firm headquartered in Toronto, with offices in Burlington, Ontario; Montreal; Vancouver; and Tokyo. He is also founder and chairman of Euro Pacific Bank Ltd., offshore bank based in St. Vincent and the Grenadines; founder, CEO, and chairman of Euro Pacific Asset Management, LLC., an asset management company founded in Newport Beach, currently relocated to San Juan, Puerto Rico, since 2013; and founder and chairman of SchiffGold, a precious metals dealer based in Manhattan.

This is more extraneous detail than a lead can bear. At least the bold needs to be trimmed.

If the material is important, it can be rehashed in a later section. — MaxEnt 00:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Assessing Schiffs predictions

Excellent source: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/20/the-peter-meter-assessing-schiffs-predictions.html Alsee (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm the one who originally added the "Criticism" section - not because I have a vendetta against the man at all, but simply because it was clear he was using Wikipedia as his own (glowing) resume. My original text has been pretty much deleted by editors since then, but I'm not going to sit by and watch it get completely emasculated; therefore, I just added another couple of references to sources critical of Schiff as a predictor of things economic.Tripbeetle (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Schiff supports same-sex marriage [1], abortion rights [2],

In would encourage the editors to review his most recent tweets on discrimination around March 31 2015 one of which has already been removed for his tweets. https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff

A government empowered to ban people or business from discriminating is a government empowered to force people or business to discriminate! 131 retweets 61 favorites Reply Retweet131 Favorite61 More

Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff  ·  23h 23 hours ago

I'm Jewish and I defend the right of any individual, including business owners/employers, to discriminate against me based on my religion. 133 retweets 145 favorites Reply Retweet133 Favorite145 More

Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff  ·  23h 23 hours ago

The mark of a free society is its ability to tolerate intolerance. Even if discrimination is offensive the right to do so must be protected 89 retweets 70 favorites Reply Retweet89 Favorite70 More

Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff  ·  23h 23 hours ago

If government can ban conduct that it deems "offensive" than it can also ban speech, writing, art, and even thought for the same reason. 163 retweets 97 favorites Reply Retweet163 Favorite97 More

Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff  ·  24h 24 hours ago

No one has a right not to be discriminated against. This is a privilege bestowed on favored groups by politicians in exchange for votes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:c6a3:8900:ec55:1224:b6d0:c8ed (talk • contribs)

Why does the Criticism section keep getting reverted?

I wrote a "Criticism" section to balance what is otherwise a free PR page for Peter Schiff, as follows:

Schiff has been the subject of criticism, in particular for his repeated claim that in foreseeing the stock market crash of 2008-2009, he "positioned his clients accordingly"

and citing the following page:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.jp/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

This Criticism section has been reverted at least twice, with no reason given. Whoever sees fit to revert this should at least give a solid reason for doing so.

Tripbeetle (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tripbeetle, is that a WP:RS? I was not the one who reverted, but that could have been a reason why. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Schiff's career background

Since when has there been any evidence that proves Schiff ever worked as an investment banker? There's no information that substantiates Schiff working as an investment banker. His background was first as a stockbroker and then a financial analyst. Now he owns and runs his investment houses as a full-time businessman. Backendgaming (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have also removed the word "economist" from this biography. Schiff has an undergraduate degree in business, and has never worked in a professional capacity as an economist.

Even Stephen Harper, former prime minister of Canada who has a bachelors as well as a master's degree in economics, does not merit the job title "economist". To call yourself an economist I would expect you to possess either a Masters, or preferrably a PhD, in economics, and to have spent several years either teaching in the field or working as an economist. Schiff has done neither. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

President Donald Trump

I am only recently looking into Peter Schiff, however I found that he tweeted that in 2016, he voted for Donald Trump. "I hoped he would be a statsemen, Instead he's a politician". https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1146855912793149440

I think that somewhere in this article these views should be reflected. As someone researching him, this was one of the things I would want to know. I'm sure there is more online about his views but here is a starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBPchur (talk • contribs)

Apologies, forgot to sign initially. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 21:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC).

WBPchur, where in the article do you think this should be mentioned? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, probably in 'Political Career' somewhere. Possibly in 'Other Endorsements'. It isn't an endorsement though, an opinion. Where would you suggest? WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC).

WBPchur, I think if it is just that one tweet it should be left out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, for now. I am confident that there will be more than one comment on it on the internet - he runs show on his YouTube channel and regularly talks about Trump by the look of the titles. I myself don't have the time to sift through these, however my hope is someone will (or already has), and knows where to look. So, to any future readers, this would be a brilliant idea. For now let's just leave it as is. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Please add at least a sentence or two about Schiff's tweets about. Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attire in his address to the US (“I understand times are hard, but doesn’t the President of the Ukraine own a suit?”) and the pushback he's received for the comments. Plenty of secondary sources on this. Here are a few: [14], [15], [16], [17] Thanks. 2600:1003:B85F:3828:0:4D:D9E9:501 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. WP:NOTNEWS, this doesn't seem like the kind of detail a biography needs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Investigation section has a biased tone

The following discussion 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.

---

The investigation section of this article presents details of a defamation case from only one point of view, the defendants. In order to be a reasonable article it needs to have both perspectives. Even some of the citations are those of the defendants in the case. Mkstokes (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources around here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whichever way you fall on this issue, there is an undue weight problem. The section should be severely trimmed to one small paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a significant amount of material that is completely irrelevant to the Atlantis investigation. Mkstokes (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

But the article cites as a "reliable source" the company and individual that lost the defamation case. How can a source guilty of defamation be cited as a reliable source? Furthermore, Peter Schiff's actions during the defamatory interview is totally irrelevant to the Atlantis investigation. It is only cited here to further cast aspersions on Peter Schiff, the individual who won the suit and was not found guilty of anything related to the investigation. Mkstokes (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's an uncited quote attributed to Peter Schiff. "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Where does that come from? Definitely not the NY Times article. Mkstokes (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lost the defamation case? If you're referring to the New York Times I think you might be incorrect. To the best of my knowledge they weren't a party to the proceedings being a US entity which has different standards when it comes to defamation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You cite 60 Minutes Australia (see #21). They were the organization that created the defamatory content. You cite Nick McKenzie's article (see #22). He's the interviewer that uttered the defamatory content during the 60 Minutes interview. Finally, you cite The Age's article written by Nick McKenzie. The Age was a party to the defamation lawsuit brought by Peter Schiff and well as Nine Network, Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer. All were found to have defamed Mr. Schiff and both Nine Network and The Age had to pay a fine plus court costs. Yet they are cited as "reliable sources" though they clearly have a conflict of interest. Even Matthew Goldstein has a conflict of interest in this as he was involved in the initial reporting of the investigation as well as subsequent reporting. "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources Mkstokes (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what a reliable source is. Please read WP:RS and refer to WP:RSP for some previous consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this section also run afoul of the Neutral Point of View policy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." This portion of the article provides a single viewpoint, that of the accusers. Mkstokes (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Note, this is not rocket science and does not require extensive discussion. Please trim the section down to one paragraph that represents the facts using the best and latest sources. I recommend filing a NPOV report if the two of you can’t figure this out. Viriditas (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the utility in trimming it to one paragraph. This is an important event in his career, he lost a bank over it Markj573 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s because this has nothing to do with "utility" and everything to do with undue weight. "Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity…Schiff was paid $550,000 and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents". We don’t get to ignore those facts and pretend that they never happened. Our article has to follow the facts. Viriditas (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed to trim. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, @Viriditas. This section should be trimmed down to one paragraph that represents the facts. I'll await for @TarnishedPath to make edits towards that consensus resolution. Here's my suggestion:

"The Age reported that Euro Pacific Bank became the target of Operation Atlantis, the world's largest tax evasion probe. On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. (https://apnews.com/article/caribbean-money-laundering-puerto-rico-san-juan-efb421edca78f0d477c665d346658373) Furthermore, the OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol. The final agreement between Euro Pacific Bank and the OCIF committed the bank to maintaining cash reserves sufficient to cover all deposits, outstanding debts to creditors, and other operating expenses. (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schiffeuro-pacific-bank-epb-and-puerto-rican-regulator-reach-agreement-on-details-of-final-liquidation-of-epb-and-guarantee-return-of-all-depositors-funds-as-promised-by-schiff-301625675.html)

Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents." Mkstokes (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s more than a short paragraph, I was worried about trimming it too much Markj573 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This Peter Schiff quote should remain in the article to have his perspective on the matter "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Markj573 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but Schiff's statement is not factual. That's why I included the reference to his press release with his lawyer. That includes his perspective. (see prnewswire reference) I'm assuming the other references provided by @TarnishedPath will remain. Mkstokes (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The page has his opinions on the gold standard and other issues. Somewhat might want to know his opinions on the case but be too lazy to click on the link.

“According to Peter Schiff ‘There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded.’” Markj573 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

For the purpose of gaining consensus on the edits, I'm okay with adding the Peter Schiff quote. Thus the proposed Investigation section would go as follows:

On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. The OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol and committed the bank to maintaining cash reserves sufficient to cover all deposits, outstanding debts to creditors, and other operating expenses. Schiff claimed this was due to the allegations by 60 Minutes Australia, The Age newspaper, and the subsequent investigations, saying, "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents. Mkstokes (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good Markj573 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, @Viriditas and @TarnishedPath, what do you think? Mkstokes (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever is decided. I just want to see an end to the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, I've added your suggested wording. TarnishedPath^talk 03:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Any proposed edit contained that press release from Schiff violated WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NPOV. No dice. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times citation needs to remain and this is in the middle of holidays. I'm written this on an iPad which isn't convenient. These discussions can wait till after the holiday period. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Things are generally 24/7/365 here, since we have global participation, so nothing really waits. But feel free to join in when you return. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Be aware though that this article has been targeted by WP:SPA accounts wishing to WP:RGW because they see this as wound against their enemy Nick McKenzie. This has been in active discussion at WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I. Edits have already been made by Mkstokes which I intend on removing once in front of a PC. Not suggesting any fault on their part but no one has agreed to their edits. Further I think I can do a much better job of taking that down to one paragraph given Mkstokes proposed an edit with a press release from Schiff. Such a proposal raises WP:CIR concerns. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the entire last sentence of the first paragraph as well as references to Peter Schiff's press release. I think the rest of that paragraph can be trimmed significantly. The last paragraph is factually accurate. I removed the reference to Nick McKenzie's The Age article because someone found to have defamed Schiff on this topic cannot be a reliable source about Schiff on this topic, whatsoever. You don't get to be wrong, defamatory, payout $550,000, and still be considered to have no conflict of interest. The Age is generally a reliable source. On this specific matter, The Age and Nick McKenzie are not. Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. WP:V Mkstokes (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your arguments are entirely incorrect and don’t fly. You clearly lack competence making such ridiculous arguments. I suggest you stop now. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you obviously have some emotional investment into both this article and the Nick McKenzie article. Personal insults and condescension are not going to resolve anything and are a direct violation of WP:5P4, WP:USTHEM and many other principles of decorum. Rather than casting aspersions, suggest cogent edits and obtain a consensus like I've attempted to do several times. This article is not for you, it's for the greater purpose of creating good encyclopedia content. Mkstokes (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mkstokes you have claimed The Age is a questionable source on this subject matter. That is a ridiculous argument. TarnishedPath^talk 20:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, you're not even giving a fair reading to my comments! I clearly said more than that and you're not adding much to this discussion. It's simple. Both The Age and Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff. Defamation, by definition, is "The action of impugning a person's good name or reputation; the action or fact of denigrating or disparaging someone." You wanted to reference material provided by defamatory respondents on the WP:BLP of the person they defamed. You further wanted to deem the defamatory respondents "reliable sources" and thus unbiased. At this point there's no reason to engage you, as your purpose is obvious now. Mkstokes (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My purpose is obvious? Do you wish to explain yourself? If you’re going to make ridiculous claims that The Age is a questionable source for this subject you’ll need to address why the New York Times isn’t despite identical reporting. I suggest you take your claims to WP:BLP/N where there is an active thread on this article. TarnishedPath^talk 22:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Here's what I don't understand. There were 5 respondents sued by Peter Schiff, yet you only list two. I know why you're not listing at least one of them, Nick McKenzie. That's what I mean that your purpose is obvious. That section if the article is still inaccurate and incomplete. @Viriditas can we at least agree to make the article fact-based? Mkstokes (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, I literally took your suggested wording from this edit word for word. For you to suggest some ulterior purpose out of my edit when I literally copy and pasted your suggested wording exactly and then added in the citations is assuming bad faith and casting aspersions. Considering that you've made all of 37 edits perhaps you don't know a lot about Wiki policy, so I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking directly at my version and your edits. Please show me where the edits I made show up in your text, because I listed all 5 sued by Mr. Shiff. I also checked Nick McKenzie's WP article and it's only mentions Nine Network of being sued. I'm not casting aspersions. I'm stating facts which for some reason you refuse to post to the article!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1192398357&markasread=300870665&markasreadwiki=enwiki Mkstokes (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

in this edit to this talk page you wrote these exact words:

"For the purpose of gaining consensus on the edits, I'm okay with adding the Peter Schiff quote. Thus the proposed Investigation section would go as follows:

On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. The OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol and committed the bank to maintaining cash reserves sufficient to cover all deposits, outstanding debts to creditors, and other operating expenses. Schiff claimed this was due to the allegations by 60 Minutes Australia, The Age newspaper, and the subsequent investigations, saying, "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents".

That is the exact wording that is now in the article. Do you intend on this conversation going around and around in circles with you casting ludicrous unfounded aspersions over and over? TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I'll put back the changes I made to make the article factually accurate. Thank you. Mkstokes (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to deny that you wrote this in which your proposed the following text?

"On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. The OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol and committed the bank to maintaining cash reserves sufficient to cover all deposits, outstanding debts to creditors, and other operating expenses. Schiff claimed this was due to the allegations by 60 Minutes Australia, The Age newspaper, and the subsequent investigations, saying, "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents".

If that's your argument, that the above diff isn't yours, then that's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever come across.

I took your exact wording and edited it into the article in good faith. If you now want to walk back the wording which you committed to you'll need to bring any alternative wording here. TarnishedPath^talk 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you deleted all my edits. The history shows that. But that's okay. Since you obvious accept my version of the article (why else would you try to use my version) with it's factual information about the defamatory case, I'll just put it all back and we can close this issue. Thank you for your cooperation! @Viriditas after my edits I think we can close this issue. Mkstokes (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You proposed wording at Special:Diff/1191308813, which I accepted and implemented. You don't now get to unilaterally decide that you want something else which doesn't have any consensus. Per WP:BLPUNDEL you need to obtain consensus for restoration of any removed material. TarnishedPath^talk 22:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, the New York Times clearly report that "the Australian judge did not find that The Age had defamed Mr. Schiff". Do you wish to retract all of your previous ridiculous arguments now? TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My article edits do not say The Age was found guilt of defamation. If you feel it does, please point out the sentence where it says that, and I will agree to have it removed. It would seem that you didn't read my proposed edit. Once again, I ask you to review and comment in good faith. Also, you still have not responded to my new proposed edits. Rather, you keep referencing the OLD edits that I have said I explicitly reject, and as such are no longer relevant. You asked me to propose new edits, yet you will not respond to them. But at least we're getting somewhere. You say that The Age was not found guilty of defamation. Okay, but was Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer? In fact, I'm not sure you've answered a single question of mine, but I have answered yours. Mkstokes (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You wrote above "TarnishedPath, you're not even giving a fair reading to my comments! I clearly said more than that and you're not adding much to this discussion. It's simple. Both The Age and Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff. Defamation, by definition, is "The action of impugning a person's good name or reputation; the action or fact of denigrating or disparaging someone." You wanted to reference material provided by defamatory respondents on the WP:BLP of the person they defamed. You further wanted to deem the defamatory respondents "reliable sources" and thus unbiased. At this point there's no reason to engage you, as your purpose is obvious now". Are you now walking that back? Are you now going to retract your ridiculous statements? TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, I've just read the current version of the article and I'm fine with the two paragraphs as is. Mkstokes (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious what specific problem @TarnishedPath has with the following factually accurate text that I posted and was removed?

"In 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5) officials said the bank was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion as part of an investigation named Operation Atlantis. Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank due to insufficient capital. However, in the settlement regulators acknowledged the bank did have cash at hand.

In 2022, Mr. Schiff filed a civil action against Nine Network, The Age, Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21, 2023, after the rejection of Nine Network's truth defense, the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, a judgment was entered against all 5 Respondents for $550,000. Additionally, both Nine Network and The Age settled to pay Schiff's legal cost on an indemnity basis, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by Nine Network."

Note: I replaced the uncited text with information from the cite they provided (see underlined). There is nothing here that's biased or false, (i.e., a neutral point of view). If they can provide a cogent excuse for not accepting this text I'd like to see it. Mkstokes (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop casting aspersions. You've been warned multiple times about it. You proposed an edit at Special:Diff/1191308813 and I implemented it. TarnishedPath^talk 22:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ps, please check that the citations you are using support the sections of text your are editing in. The AP News citation did not support the section of text "However, in the settlement regulators acknowledged the bank did have cash at hand.", however one of the NY Times citations did. You will find that I've used it in the latest edit.

Please remember that @Viriditas entered this discussion in favour of trimming down to 1 paragraph. You proposed 1 paragraph at Special:Diff/1191308813 and it is now at pretty close wording to that one paragraph after I made some slight edits afterwords. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath nothing in the response asking for your problem with the text casts aspersions. I've simply asked you to provide what is wrong with my edit and have provided it to you so that we can reach a agreement as it's obvious I don't agree with what you put online. You said "If you now want to walk back the wording which you committed to you'll need to bring any alternative wording here." I have provided the alternative wording, but rather than responding, you've accused me. NOTE: I do not approve of the current text, so please stop editing and saying "Restore to wording as agreed to by @Mkstokes" because I do not agree. @Viriditas I think this may need a Wikipedia:3O. Based on the edits, the issues seem as follows:

1. Citing Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer in the article

2. Citing the failed truth defense of the respondents

3. Citing the settlement was against all 5 respondents

4. Citing 2 respondents were forced to pay Schiff's legal fees

For #1, these are the people that defamed Mr. Schiff and thus their inclusion is important. Nine Network and The Age allowed the defamation to occur. @TarnishedPath version leaves the inference that only two corporate entities were involved. As a side note, the same deficiency is on Nick McKenzie's page, however, it's worse because it only lists Nine Network as culpable. Mkstokes (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You proposed the wording in this edit Special:Diff/1191308813. I've since made some slight adjustments for clarity. Anything further requires consensus. I advise you refer to the NYT source which is reflected in the wording. Kind Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes, in the edit summary for this edit you wrote "per talk trim discussion, reverted to proposed text again and will continue to do so. Will modify by consensus only when @TarnishedPath directly addresses deficiencies". I would highly recommend against taking such an attitude as that can be considered WP:STONEWALLING and also an admission that you are intent on WP:EDITWAR.

Now can we come back to basics please. You proposed wording at Special:Diff/1191308813 which I implemented. I have only made minor copy edits since and added a citation. Now I'm open to removing that citation if you think it's so egregious (what exactly is your problem with The Age?). However beyond that we need to reach consensus on anything else. I'm not so unreasonable that I'm not willing to look at other wording, however I do have concerns about your sourcing, particularly given that this is a WP:BLP. If we are going to have something else can you please post it here (citations included inline) so I can have a look. The lawyerly source for example I don't agree to because a) it's not accessible and b) I believe we already have better sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath the New York Times is behind a paywall. Besides, I only said what you've been doing for a long time. The number of edits you keep making to just this section is vastly more than I have made and I'm wondering how many people you've gotten banned just on this small section of a biography? Also, I've said multiple times that I disagree with the proposed wording you keep referencing. That is why I completely edited that suggestion. But you keep referring to something that I rejected as if that shows you're reasonable. I provided you with additional proposed text and you have STILL after all this time not addressed it or noted your problems with it. You say you're not unreasonable. Fine, then start with that proposed text rather than referring to something that I no longer approve of. I even put in bold "NOTE: I do not approve of the current text, so please stop editing and saying "Restore to wording as agreed to by @Mkstokes" because I do not agree." If not, I'll just have to go with another solution to get the full context out. Mkstokes (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to continue with more of your WP:GASLIGHTING?

Do I need to remind you once again that in Special:Diff/1191308813 you wrote the following?

"For the purpose of gaining consensus on the edits, I'm okay with adding the Peter Schiff quote. Thus the proposed Investigation section would go as follows:

On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. The OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol and committed the bank to maintaining cash reserves sufficient to cover all deposits, outstanding debts to creditors, and other operating expenses. Schiff claimed this was due to the allegations by 60 Minutes Australia, The Age newspaper, and the subsequent investigations, saying, "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded." Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents".

The text in the article currently stands is:

On June 30, 2022, the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF) announced they had suspended the operations of Puerto Rico-based Euro Pacific International Bank, which officials said was under suspicion of facilitating money laundering and offshore tax evasion. The OCIF ordered Euro Pacific Bank to be shut down due to insufficient capitol. In a latter settlement the regulators acknowledged the bank did have sufficient cash at hand. Schiff claimed the OCIF actions were due to the allegations by 60 Minutes Australia, The Age newspaper, and the subsequent investigations, saying, "There was no way those allegations were true, but once those stories broke, the bank's business imploded". Operation Atlantis yielded no charges of money laundering or any other illegal activity. In 2022 Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network and The Age newspaper for defamation over the Australian 60 Minutes interview and subsequent Age articles. On November 21 the civil action was settled. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid more than $360,000 by Nine Networks and The Age, and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents.

I implemented your proposal, added citations, undertook some copy editing and then added a source (The Age one you dislike).

What specific edits do you propose to this without using Lawerly? TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's start small. "Schiff filed civil action against the Nine Network, The Age newspaper, Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer for defamation..." is a proposed edit. All five were named in the defamation suit. Since we already agree that Nick McKenzie's broadcast interview was defamatory, I'm assuming there's no issue with referencing him as being part of the suit. Mkstokes (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth or WP:GASLIGHT. How many times do I need to warn you?

Now moving on, none of citations currently used in the article support that.

Here's a quote from the NYT: "The New York Times did its own article on the investigation in collaboration with “60 Minutes” and The Age newspaper, also owned by Nine Entertainment. Mr. Schiff had also sued the newspaper, but the Australian judge did not find that The Age had defamed Mr. Schiff.

The Times was not a party to the litigation.

In a statement, Mr. Schiff said he filed the lawsuit because the Nine media companies “declared me guilty of crimes that investigators ultimately found no evidence to even charge me with.”

The settlement also required Nine to pay legal and court costs to Mr. Schiff and take down the “60 Minutes” report. News of the deal was first reported by publications in Australia.

In a statement, Nine said it supported its journalists and that “60 Minutes” accepted the judge’s ruling. The articles, which were found not to be defamatory, will remain online."

How does that quote line up with your suggested modification? You've not even provided the reliable source which supports your suggested modification. TarnishedPath^talk 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The quote doesn't line up with the New York Times article. However, several edits ago the actual consent notice from Justice Jackson listed the parties involved in the suit as well as the settlement amount. This is a fact. But because the New York Times doesn't mention it, it's not true? I see an unfortunate pattern that I'm not assigning to you. Peter Schiff's press release isn't allowed as a reference, though he clearly says he sued all five respondents. The court documents showing that he sued all 5 are not allowed as references. Even the actual video of the 60 minutes interview is not allowed to be cited. Finally, the article by The Daily Wire is not allowed to be cited because it's not a reliable source. But the incomplete and in one instance inaccurate reporting (both Nine Network and The Age were required to pay legal and court costs per the cited court order) by the NY Times is allowed because they are a reliable source.

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1086/2021/3924889/event/31614647/document/2196773

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1086/2021/actions

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/australian-federal-court-finds-that-australian-nine-networks-60-minutes-its-reporter-and-two-producers-published-and-conveyed-seven-defamatory-imputations-about-financial-expert-and-banker-peter-schiff-and-his-euro-pacific-ban-301635860.html Mkstokes (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source that states the following (among other facts): "In a 48-page decision, the Federal Court of Australia found guilty the 60 Minutes Australia producer Nine Network, reporter Nicholas McKenzie, and producers Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer of publishing and conveying seven imputations which are defamatory about Schiff and EPB. The case relates to the show’s broadcast on October 18, 2020."

https://thedeepdive.ca/peter-schiff-defamed-by-60-minutes-australian-federal-court/ Mkstokes (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. It's out.

The pmewswire source is a press release from Schiff, it's not suitable for a WP:BLP. It's out.

Per https://thedeepdive.ca/about/, The Deep Dive published on WordPress. It's an investor blog. Blog's are automatically considered not reliable. It's out.

Per WP:NYT The New York Times is a reliable source. Anyone who argues otherwise is not competent to be editing Wikipedia. We follow what the reliable sources say around here. TarnishedPath^talk 07:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? TarnishedPath^talk 08:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a few suggestions later, but I see the pattern here. Thanks for the clarification and validation of the Wikipedia process. It was much appreciated. The direct insult to me was duly noted as well. Mkstokes (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no insult to you. In any case I'll await any constructive suggestions on how to move forward.

Note: that if you believe that my interpretation of sources and Wikipedia policy is entirely incorrect and that your preferred wording is backed up by Wikipedia policy and sourcing you could always put it to an WP:RfC, rather than go back and forth endlessly. The pros are that it invites outside input, the cons are that if you don't like the outcome then you're stuck with it for at least a period of time (refer to WP:CCC). TarnishedPath^talk 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the court document rule, that is utter nonsense. Basically, what it amounts to is a situation where the NY Times can write an article citing a court document and citing the NY Times article is acceptable, but citing the very document that the NY Times used to author the article is unacceptable. So, someone can be convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, but if a reliable source doesn't write about it, then the crime didn't happen as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Mkstokes (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately @TarnishedPath, I cannot rely upon your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY| "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." You seem to have missed the second part of that paragraph, so I'm happy to point it out to you to help you be more competent.

As it pertains to our situation, the NY Times is clearly referencing court documents when it discusses the details. Anticipating that you'll disagree, I've noticed that if you look at the NY Times article by Goldstein that you cite, it has a hyperlink that references a Lawyerly article behind a paywall. So, it's good for the reliable source, but not good for Wikipedia? (See hyperlink in sentence: "News of the deal was first reported by publications in Australia."). I'll of course want the Lawyerly citation reinstated.

Finally, even your interpretation of the blog guidelines is suspect as WP:BLPSPS clearly says, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.. Thus blogs are not "automatically considered not reliable" in the context of a WP:BLP. I'll be submitting additional content from the subject of this article in the very near future. If there's any additional explanation of Wikipedia's guidelines that you need in the future, please let me know so I can help you become more competent. Mkstokes (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes the NYT does reference Lawyerly and court documents. That's what we rely on secondary sources to do, to take primary information and transform it into something that is digestible because most people lack the skills to take information from primary sources and recognise its meaning in context. Just because NYT are referencing court transcripts for example it doesn't mean we are free to do the same in BLPs as there is specific WP policy that rules this out per WP:BLPPRIMARY which says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".

Per your quotation about the Blog, why did you bother posting it? It says "unless written or published by the subject of the article" and the relevant policy that covers that exception is WP:ABOUTSELF. However, that is irrelevant as clearly that blog article was not written by Schiff. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Per your argument about the second part of the paragraph, it is not relevant. Either you can't read or you're attempting to gaslight again. At WP:BLPPRIMARY in the sentence Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" the word not is clearly bolded. That is clearly a prohibition with no exception. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, per The Daily Telegraph, I'll be requesting to add back text from the article which states that "Mr Schiff took Federal Court defamation action claiming “allegations of criminality” were made about him by Mr McKenzie, and his colleagues Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer" as well as "Nine was forced to abandon its truth and contextual truth defences over the TV broadcast earlier this year." I'll figure out the exact language later, making sure it is very brief. Mkstokes (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read that page which you provided the wikilink for? That's the British Daily Telegraph. A very different paper to the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Now it may be that an RfC at WP:RS finds something about that paper, but at present time that hasn't been tested and It's reporting on living people is sus to say the least. It is constantly the subject of litigation and settlements for its factually incorrect reporting. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ps, in the article I made sure to make sure that the NYT articles were accessible via archive. Please check it out. I went to a bit of effort to make sure those articles were accessible. TarnishedPath^talk 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

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.