This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Piketty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Thomas Piketty from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. Translated from French Wikipedia as of 28 April 2009 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The link to the curriculum vitae does not work anymore. -- 13Peewit ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Foremost, the "criticism" section is heavily cited. I am not sure what the issue here is about original research. Please specify more clearly. Second, the second paragraph of the intro is a restatement of the criticism section. Citations here are redundant, and the reader should direct his or her attention to the body of the article. Archivingcontext ( talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The so-called "criticism section" is in fact mostly a cherry-picked excerpt from the reception section of the article about the book. I'd propose to either expand this into a broader reception section here as well (perhaps by copying the quotes from Will Hutton and Paul Krugman into this article) or to confine all reception dealing with the book to the existing article about the book. --Sewonathy 17:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that it really matters but just a note on the "fabrication of data" charge added by an IP, in case the matter should come up again. The cited article has a rather aggressive tone but what it essentiallly says is that a graph is a book is misleading in that it only includes that working population between 18 and 65 rather than the whole population. This is arguably true -even though the caption of the graph is perfectly explicit- but that sounds rather ridiculous to mention that in this article (and of course that doesn't qualify as "fabrication of data"). -- Superzoulou ( talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That section needs to be collapsed with the main section on the book and summarizer per WP:SUMMARY. Most of the content is duplicated at Capital in the Twenty-First Century Cwobeel ( talk) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
NYT [3] Some of the issues identified by Mr. Giles appear to be clear-cut errors, and others are more in the realm of judgment calls in analyzing data that may not be fully explained by Mr. Piketty but are not necessarily wrong.
WaPo [4] How serious are these problems? And how much, if at all, should they change what we think about inequality? Well, the answer seems to be not too serious, except for the recent British numbers. Let's go through them. Giles identifies three basic types of issues. The first are simple transcription errors. He finds, for example, that Piketty accidentally entered Sweden's wealth data from 1908 instead of 1920
Guardian [5] For the lay person attempting to referee the row, and having to interpret such abstruse concepts as the Gini coefficient and, as Gaffney neatly summarises, whether "the r > g inequality is amplifying the reconcentration trend", illumination is hard to discern. For its critics, further confirmation of why economics is called the dismal science
CNBC [6] For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. An independent specialist in measuring inequality shared the FT's concerns.
This suggests the issue is pretty much "big news" and we ought not ignore it - just make absolutely sure it is covered in an NPOV manner. Collect ( talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(od) What is means is I do not give a damn about any of your "redactions" and ad homs any more And I do not try responding in kind, as you are doing a quite excellent job on this article talk page. Collect ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How about we omit the dubious fraud/plagiarism allegations from CNBC/FT, and instead create a criticism section that notes the statistical errors and criticizes his methodology? Steeletrap ( talk) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a content discussion VM, keep it civil.
The crux of the comment I left is that there don't appear to be clear allegations of "plagiarism", but more along the lines of falsification/manipulation of data, which are far from conclusive. Even though the allegation do not rise to plagiarism, were the assertions true, they would constitute academic misconduct.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources cited in Picketty's reply to the FT have been claimed to be "unreliable" in a
revert. It seems that the sources
[13]
[14] should be considered reliable, but maybe that can be discussed here without going to a notice board first.
Further, in his reply, Picketty states
For instance, my US series have already been extended and improved by an important new research paper by Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley) and Gabriel Zucman (LSE). This work was done after my book was written, so unfortunately I could not use it for my book. Saez and Zucman use much more systematic data than I used in my book, especially for the recent period. Also their series are constructed using a completely different data source and methodology (namely, the capitalisation method using capital income flows and income statements by asset class)...
As you can see by yourself, their results confirm and reinforce my own findings: the rise in top wealth shares in the US in recent decades has been even larger than what I show in my book...
Finally, let me say that my estimates on wealth concentration do not fully take into account offshore wealth, and are likely to err on the low side. I am certainly not trying to make the picture look darker than it it. As I make clear in chapter 12 of my book (see in particular table 12.1-12.2), top wealth holders have apparently been rising a lot faster average wealth in recent decades, at least according to the wealth rankings published in magazines such as Forbes. This is true not only in the US, but also in Britain and at the global level (see attached table). This is not well taken into account by wealth surveys and official statistics, including the recent statistics that were published for Britain. Piketty response to FT data concerns
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that saying in one sentence that the material has been "claimed" to be "unreliable" is a misuse of what the reliable sources actually state and then quoting Piketty at great length might violate NPOV as well. Best to state the issue briefly and his demurral - we are not here to either attack anyone, nor to ignore what has achieved major international coverage. FWIW, US pension funds now total about $21 trillion
[15]. Total market cap of all US listed companies is under $19 trillion
[16]. Total US household net worth is about $65 trillion or so
[17] (no gain from 2006) making about 1/3 of all household assets being in pension funds.
Collect (
talk)
15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Collect (and perhaps others) has been itching to add "serious allegations of fudging data", with Collect apparently believing it is sensible to do so because "the statements that Piketty used incorrect figures are admitted by Piketty at this point" -- indicating that Piketty admits he used dodgy data and thereby implying that his arguments about inequality are wrong. It's then worth noting that Piketty rejects that implication and considers the FT criticism "dishonest". (The final paragraph of that last link is especially interesting on that larger point.) So, this whole thing is textbook WP:NOTNEWS and forms an apparently much-needed object lesson for some editors re how to edit BLPs. One awaits signs of that lesson having been learned. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The claims made by the FT and verified by the NYT and a host of other reliable sources (Economist, Spectator, Guardian, HuffPo, Reuters etc.) are not "bullshit". That sort of comment about editors is not impressing anyone at all, and seems more designed to be an attack on editors than a remotely serious attempt at improving the article. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Trumped up allegations do not belong in the article.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Scott Winship, an economist at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and notable critic of Piketty's analysis, said the FT's allegations weren't "significant for the fundamental question of whether Piketty's thesis is right or not". In an email to Bloomberg news agency, he wrote: "It's hard to think Piketty did something unethical when he put it up there for people like me to delve into his figures and find something that looks sketchy … Piketty has been as good or better than anyone at both making all his data available and documenting what he does generally."
The article cited has:
That is - the example of Britain differences is not minor.
That is - the material is "muddy" due to variances in the sourc data.
All of which is in precise and complete accord with the NPOV edit I suggested. Right now we are Wiki-ostriches denying that any controversy exists, where the Economist clearly says one does exist. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in the past week or so the FT criticism has gotten a lot of attention, which means that whether it is correct or not it should probably be mentioned... somewhere. It's a little hard to make out exactly the nature of the purported mistakes (without replicating the analysis myself, which I don't have time for) which is why my preference would be to wait till this is hashed out in academic journals and publications. Recall that the Reinhart and Rogoff controversy, to which this has been compared, got recognition and became "notable" only once the critics published their findings in an actual journal article. AFAIK that hasn't happened here yet. It's a conversation in the "econ blogosphere". If I'm wrong, then please feel free to correct me on this point.
Assuming that I'm not, I do think that for WP:BLP reasons converge of this controversy belongs in the article on the Capital in the Twenty-First Century itself, not here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be broad agreement that mentioning the criticisms of the book in the biography is not appropriate. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
(I saw the following in the article about the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, so I left a comment there, but I find the same sentence in this article, so I'll repeat the comment here. My suggestion is that this should only be discussed in one place. The book talk page section seems like the logical best place, but I note this page gets more page views, and seems more active, so it may happen here.)
The third sentence of the section about the book reads:
The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.
I read the source: [1]
Rather than simply revert and discuss, I thought I might be missing something, so I'm asking if someone else can see how the very strong claim the very democratic order will be threatened is supported by the source. I'll also suggest, that such a strong claim, unless supplemented by links to the original book, requires additional sourcing. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That is why Piketty has made such a huge impact: He has starkly and convincingly outlined the stakes for future generations. Either we'll have a new birth of reformed capitalism, with his preferred progressive wealth tax and other institutions, or we'll have wealth concentration on such a colossal scale that it will threaten the democratic order.
References
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)As I wrote on Salon several months ago, the growing plutocracy is a subject for all of us; in Piketty’s words, it “is too important an issue to be left to economists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers.”
The outrage of soaring inequality is ultimately, as Piketty reminds us, a challenge to democracy itself. [20]
I removed the qualifier "bell" as a descriptor of a Kuznets curve. The shape in the article about the curve is not a bell curve. I reviewed Kuznets' paper [1] (quickly) and did not find a reference to "bell" or "normal". Nor did I see anything in the paper which would suggest it would be a normal curve.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
References
Stated this way, it is really misleading. Piketty writes about 2 types of inequality: wealth and income. Current income inequality is mostly about wages (as Piketty mentions), which are not directly related to returns on capital. As for capital inequality, Piketty does not argue that inequality increases mechanically when r > g. What he says (most clearly in this "Capital is back" technical article, but also in the book) is that under assumptions he finds plausible about growth, return on capital and propensity to consume, capital inequality will tend toward a steady state that is significantly higher than the current situation. -- Superzoulou ( talk) 16:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
He is the author of the best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) that documents capital accumulation and distribution in the past 250 years. The book argues that developed countries seem to be heading toward higher levels of wealth inequality, notably because the rate of return to capital is durably higher the economic growth rate.
Addable in a 'personal life' section at the bottom of the article?
There is an uncomfortable topic that I have to raise. Earlier this year, allegations surfaced that Piketty had perpetrated domestic violence against his former partner, who made a legal complaint in 2009. Piketty has spoken out before to confirm he was arrested but that no charges or prosecution followed. His response, however, at this interview, is perturbing. When I ask about the allegations, he clams up and begins to mumble. “I’ve not seen that, you’re the first person to tell me about it.” It has been in several newspapers, I say. “I’ve not seen it.” The claims are just all nonsense, then? “I have not seen it. I am sorry. You probably don’t read the same papers as I do!” A nervous laugh follows. I move on, although the atmosphere has gone rather stale. Does he find his rock-star intellectual reputation demeaning or has he embraced it? “Well, if it gets more people to read my book, then I have no problem with the publicity,” is the curt reply.
-- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 19:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Karl Marx is listed as an influence. Why? In Capital in the 21st Century, Piketty repeatedly criticizes Marxism and explicitly states he is of a recent enough generation that he is in no way enamored with Marxism. This should be removed in my opinion, but before I do that I'd like to hear why anyone thinks it belongs. Honestly, the same could be said for the Kunetz as influence reference as well. People you argue against aren't really influences are they? (6 Jan 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.80.193 ( talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I had removed what I feel was a POV pushing sentence "According to a study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty, the top 1 percent of earners have captured more of the income gains under Obama than under George W. Bush." I argue this is a POV pushing sentence that can be considered misleading because the overall project of Piketty and Saez has been to show that inequality has been growing for awhile. The source I feel decontextualizes the Saez/Piketty study to make a specific political point about Obama. The source uses the Saez/Piketty study, but however, then makes its own political and economic conclusions about the study, ignoring Piketty's overall argument. It seems to me that the "source" here is a POV pushing article that happens to cherry pick an out of context stat to make a political point. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The source mirrors the Saez/Piketty study by quoting its findings! A plan fact is being reported. Let the Wikipedia reader makes their own political and economic conclusions. Should Wikipedia cover up facts because some people find these facts inconvenient?! Jimjilin ( talk) 04:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you feel I am "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Jimjilin ( talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add: A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago. Jimjilin ( talk) 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Does anyone feel this addition is cherry picked? Please explain why. Jimjilin ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Since no one seems able to tell me how my proposed addition is "cherry-picked" I'll just add it. Jimjilin ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Xcuref1endx, Volunteer Marek, and Jimjilin:The follow was removed from the article on grounds of consensus being against it. However, it seems consensus was against referring to who was president (see above). Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. What is the objection now? Jimjilin ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I quoted the first source exactly! Jimjilin ( talk) 05:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I just mirrored the source Volunteer Marek. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I added another source. I hope this is okay. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Xcuref1endx, Oceanflynn, Xcuref1endx, Volunteer Marek, Annihilation00, Nomoskedasticity, and Jimjilin:The following paragraph was removed with the comment 'Following a different editor's suggestion', diff:
A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago. ref 1 ref 2
The study referred to by the New Times and New York post is available online here (for different versions {2006, 2013} see section above).
The RfC is about two questions.
Please don't respond to editors answers in the Survey section, use 'threaded discussion'.
Further discussion goes here. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To reply to the points raised by @ Markbassett:. The 2006 study is perhaps the one that should be mentioned, and how it laid the ground work for the Saez authored studies in 2012 and 2013. The study being cited in mainstream media makes it notable. Whether or not the NYC piece criticised Obama is irrelevant, and is not mentioned in the removed paragraph. Perhaps this criticism of Obama is the main controversy over inclusion. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Piketty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Thomas Piketty from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. Translated from French Wikipedia as of 28 April 2009 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The link to the curriculum vitae does not work anymore. -- 13Peewit ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Foremost, the "criticism" section is heavily cited. I am not sure what the issue here is about original research. Please specify more clearly. Second, the second paragraph of the intro is a restatement of the criticism section. Citations here are redundant, and the reader should direct his or her attention to the body of the article. Archivingcontext ( talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The so-called "criticism section" is in fact mostly a cherry-picked excerpt from the reception section of the article about the book. I'd propose to either expand this into a broader reception section here as well (perhaps by copying the quotes from Will Hutton and Paul Krugman into this article) or to confine all reception dealing with the book to the existing article about the book. --Sewonathy 17:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not that it really matters but just a note on the "fabrication of data" charge added by an IP, in case the matter should come up again. The cited article has a rather aggressive tone but what it essentiallly says is that a graph is a book is misleading in that it only includes that working population between 18 and 65 rather than the whole population. This is arguably true -even though the caption of the graph is perfectly explicit- but that sounds rather ridiculous to mention that in this article (and of course that doesn't qualify as "fabrication of data"). -- Superzoulou ( talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That section needs to be collapsed with the main section on the book and summarizer per WP:SUMMARY. Most of the content is duplicated at Capital in the Twenty-First Century Cwobeel ( talk) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
NYT [3] Some of the issues identified by Mr. Giles appear to be clear-cut errors, and others are more in the realm of judgment calls in analyzing data that may not be fully explained by Mr. Piketty but are not necessarily wrong.
WaPo [4] How serious are these problems? And how much, if at all, should they change what we think about inequality? Well, the answer seems to be not too serious, except for the recent British numbers. Let's go through them. Giles identifies three basic types of issues. The first are simple transcription errors. He finds, for example, that Piketty accidentally entered Sweden's wealth data from 1908 instead of 1920
Guardian [5] For the lay person attempting to referee the row, and having to interpret such abstruse concepts as the Gini coefficient and, as Gaffney neatly summarises, whether "the r > g inequality is amplifying the reconcentration trend", illumination is hard to discern. For its critics, further confirmation of why economics is called the dismal science
CNBC [6] For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. An independent specialist in measuring inequality shared the FT's concerns.
This suggests the issue is pretty much "big news" and we ought not ignore it - just make absolutely sure it is covered in an NPOV manner. Collect ( talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(od) What is means is I do not give a damn about any of your "redactions" and ad homs any more And I do not try responding in kind, as you are doing a quite excellent job on this article talk page. Collect ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How about we omit the dubious fraud/plagiarism allegations from CNBC/FT, and instead create a criticism section that notes the statistical errors and criticizes his methodology? Steeletrap ( talk) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a content discussion VM, keep it civil.
The crux of the comment I left is that there don't appear to be clear allegations of "plagiarism", but more along the lines of falsification/manipulation of data, which are far from conclusive. Even though the allegation do not rise to plagiarism, were the assertions true, they would constitute academic misconduct.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources cited in Picketty's reply to the FT have been claimed to be "unreliable" in a
revert. It seems that the sources
[13]
[14] should be considered reliable, but maybe that can be discussed here without going to a notice board first.
Further, in his reply, Picketty states
For instance, my US series have already been extended and improved by an important new research paper by Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley) and Gabriel Zucman (LSE). This work was done after my book was written, so unfortunately I could not use it for my book. Saez and Zucman use much more systematic data than I used in my book, especially for the recent period. Also their series are constructed using a completely different data source and methodology (namely, the capitalisation method using capital income flows and income statements by asset class)...
As you can see by yourself, their results confirm and reinforce my own findings: the rise in top wealth shares in the US in recent decades has been even larger than what I show in my book...
Finally, let me say that my estimates on wealth concentration do not fully take into account offshore wealth, and are likely to err on the low side. I am certainly not trying to make the picture look darker than it it. As I make clear in chapter 12 of my book (see in particular table 12.1-12.2), top wealth holders have apparently been rising a lot faster average wealth in recent decades, at least according to the wealth rankings published in magazines such as Forbes. This is true not only in the US, but also in Britain and at the global level (see attached table). This is not well taken into account by wealth surveys and official statistics, including the recent statistics that were published for Britain. Piketty response to FT data concerns
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that saying in one sentence that the material has been "claimed" to be "unreliable" is a misuse of what the reliable sources actually state and then quoting Piketty at great length might violate NPOV as well. Best to state the issue briefly and his demurral - we are not here to either attack anyone, nor to ignore what has achieved major international coverage. FWIW, US pension funds now total about $21 trillion
[15]. Total market cap of all US listed companies is under $19 trillion
[16]. Total US household net worth is about $65 trillion or so
[17] (no gain from 2006) making about 1/3 of all household assets being in pension funds.
Collect (
talk)
15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Collect (and perhaps others) has been itching to add "serious allegations of fudging data", with Collect apparently believing it is sensible to do so because "the statements that Piketty used incorrect figures are admitted by Piketty at this point" -- indicating that Piketty admits he used dodgy data and thereby implying that his arguments about inequality are wrong. It's then worth noting that Piketty rejects that implication and considers the FT criticism "dishonest". (The final paragraph of that last link is especially interesting on that larger point.) So, this whole thing is textbook WP:NOTNEWS and forms an apparently much-needed object lesson for some editors re how to edit BLPs. One awaits signs of that lesson having been learned. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The claims made by the FT and verified by the NYT and a host of other reliable sources (Economist, Spectator, Guardian, HuffPo, Reuters etc.) are not "bullshit". That sort of comment about editors is not impressing anyone at all, and seems more designed to be an attack on editors than a remotely serious attempt at improving the article. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Trumped up allegations do not belong in the article.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Scott Winship, an economist at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and notable critic of Piketty's analysis, said the FT's allegations weren't "significant for the fundamental question of whether Piketty's thesis is right or not". In an email to Bloomberg news agency, he wrote: "It's hard to think Piketty did something unethical when he put it up there for people like me to delve into his figures and find something that looks sketchy … Piketty has been as good or better than anyone at both making all his data available and documenting what he does generally."
The article cited has:
That is - the example of Britain differences is not minor.
That is - the material is "muddy" due to variances in the sourc data.
All of which is in precise and complete accord with the NPOV edit I suggested. Right now we are Wiki-ostriches denying that any controversy exists, where the Economist clearly says one does exist. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in the past week or so the FT criticism has gotten a lot of attention, which means that whether it is correct or not it should probably be mentioned... somewhere. It's a little hard to make out exactly the nature of the purported mistakes (without replicating the analysis myself, which I don't have time for) which is why my preference would be to wait till this is hashed out in academic journals and publications. Recall that the Reinhart and Rogoff controversy, to which this has been compared, got recognition and became "notable" only once the critics published their findings in an actual journal article. AFAIK that hasn't happened here yet. It's a conversation in the "econ blogosphere". If I'm wrong, then please feel free to correct me on this point.
Assuming that I'm not, I do think that for WP:BLP reasons converge of this controversy belongs in the article on the Capital in the Twenty-First Century itself, not here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be broad agreement that mentioning the criticisms of the book in the biography is not appropriate. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
(I saw the following in the article about the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, so I left a comment there, but I find the same sentence in this article, so I'll repeat the comment here. My suggestion is that this should only be discussed in one place. The book talk page section seems like the logical best place, but I note this page gets more page views, and seems more active, so it may happen here.)
The third sentence of the section about the book reads:
The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened.
I read the source: [1]
Rather than simply revert and discuss, I thought I might be missing something, so I'm asking if someone else can see how the very strong claim the very democratic order will be threatened is supported by the source. I'll also suggest, that such a strong claim, unless supplemented by links to the original book, requires additional sourcing. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That is why Piketty has made such a huge impact: He has starkly and convincingly outlined the stakes for future generations. Either we'll have a new birth of reformed capitalism, with his preferred progressive wealth tax and other institutions, or we'll have wealth concentration on such a colossal scale that it will threaten the democratic order.
References
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)As I wrote on Salon several months ago, the growing plutocracy is a subject for all of us; in Piketty’s words, it “is too important an issue to be left to economists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers.”
The outrage of soaring inequality is ultimately, as Piketty reminds us, a challenge to democracy itself. [20]
I removed the qualifier "bell" as a descriptor of a Kuznets curve. The shape in the article about the curve is not a bell curve. I reviewed Kuznets' paper [1] (quickly) and did not find a reference to "bell" or "normal". Nor did I see anything in the paper which would suggest it would be a normal curve.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
References
Stated this way, it is really misleading. Piketty writes about 2 types of inequality: wealth and income. Current income inequality is mostly about wages (as Piketty mentions), which are not directly related to returns on capital. As for capital inequality, Piketty does not argue that inequality increases mechanically when r > g. What he says (most clearly in this "Capital is back" technical article, but also in the book) is that under assumptions he finds plausible about growth, return on capital and propensity to consume, capital inequality will tend toward a steady state that is significantly higher than the current situation. -- Superzoulou ( talk) 16:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
He is the author of the best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) that documents capital accumulation and distribution in the past 250 years. The book argues that developed countries seem to be heading toward higher levels of wealth inequality, notably because the rate of return to capital is durably higher the economic growth rate.
Addable in a 'personal life' section at the bottom of the article?
There is an uncomfortable topic that I have to raise. Earlier this year, allegations surfaced that Piketty had perpetrated domestic violence against his former partner, who made a legal complaint in 2009. Piketty has spoken out before to confirm he was arrested but that no charges or prosecution followed. His response, however, at this interview, is perturbing. When I ask about the allegations, he clams up and begins to mumble. “I’ve not seen that, you’re the first person to tell me about it.” It has been in several newspapers, I say. “I’ve not seen it.” The claims are just all nonsense, then? “I have not seen it. I am sorry. You probably don’t read the same papers as I do!” A nervous laugh follows. I move on, although the atmosphere has gone rather stale. Does he find his rock-star intellectual reputation demeaning or has he embraced it? “Well, if it gets more people to read my book, then I have no problem with the publicity,” is the curt reply.
-- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 19:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Karl Marx is listed as an influence. Why? In Capital in the 21st Century, Piketty repeatedly criticizes Marxism and explicitly states he is of a recent enough generation that he is in no way enamored with Marxism. This should be removed in my opinion, but before I do that I'd like to hear why anyone thinks it belongs. Honestly, the same could be said for the Kunetz as influence reference as well. People you argue against aren't really influences are they? (6 Jan 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.80.193 ( talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I had removed what I feel was a POV pushing sentence "According to a study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty, the top 1 percent of earners have captured more of the income gains under Obama than under George W. Bush." I argue this is a POV pushing sentence that can be considered misleading because the overall project of Piketty and Saez has been to show that inequality has been growing for awhile. The source I feel decontextualizes the Saez/Piketty study to make a specific political point about Obama. The source uses the Saez/Piketty study, but however, then makes its own political and economic conclusions about the study, ignoring Piketty's overall argument. It seems to me that the "source" here is a POV pushing article that happens to cherry pick an out of context stat to make a political point. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The source mirrors the Saez/Piketty study by quoting its findings! A plan fact is being reported. Let the Wikipedia reader makes their own political and economic conclusions. Should Wikipedia cover up facts because some people find these facts inconvenient?! Jimjilin ( talk) 04:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you feel I am "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Jimjilin ( talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add: A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago. Jimjilin ( talk) 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Does anyone feel this addition is cherry picked? Please explain why. Jimjilin ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Since no one seems able to tell me how my proposed addition is "cherry-picked" I'll just add it. Jimjilin ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Xcuref1endx, Volunteer Marek, and Jimjilin:The follow was removed from the article on grounds of consensus being against it. However, it seems consensus was against referring to who was president (see above). Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. What is the objection now? Jimjilin ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I quoted the first source exactly! Jimjilin ( talk) 05:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I just mirrored the source Volunteer Marek. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I added another source. I hope this is okay. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Xcuref1endx, Oceanflynn, Xcuref1endx, Volunteer Marek, Annihilation00, Nomoskedasticity, and Jimjilin:The following paragraph was removed with the comment 'Following a different editor's suggestion', diff:
A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago. ref 1 ref 2
The study referred to by the New Times and New York post is available online here (for different versions {2006, 2013} see section above).
The RfC is about two questions.
Please don't respond to editors answers in the Survey section, use 'threaded discussion'.
Further discussion goes here. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To reply to the points raised by @ Markbassett:. The 2006 study is perhaps the one that should be mentioned, and how it laid the ground work for the Saez authored studies in 2012 and 2013. The study being cited in mainstream media makes it notable. Whether or not the NYC piece criticised Obama is irrelevant, and is not mentioned in the removed paragraph. Perhaps this criticism of Obama is the main controversy over inclusion. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)