This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
"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."
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)
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 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'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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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:
184.7.109.84 ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 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)
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)
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 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)
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 you 24.151.19.17 ( talk) 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>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=3ncLTFoTFa8 24.151.19.17 ( talk) 03:15, 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)
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)
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. Ged UK 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
--->KJ, what do you think "Keynesian" means? '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 23:27, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
2 editors have done a lot of good clean-up and tightening. Aside from restoring the mediated Krugman language, I have two other thoughts:
I'm afraid that removing those two quotes weakens the article. Please consider re-inserting. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Category:Conservatism in the United States" relevant - Schiff refers to himself as libertarian conservative [12].-- Polmandc ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Schiff complains about the present article -- Cesar Tort 16:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
Kitco
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."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)
Why is the lead paragraph so huge? I propose to cut it back to one sentence. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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 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)
This
edit request to
Peter Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)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)
"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".
"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".
"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 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."
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. It's out.
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".
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)
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)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
"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."
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)
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 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'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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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:
184.7.109.84 ( talk) 17:19, 13 July 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)
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)
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 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)
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 you 24.151.19.17 ( talk) 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>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=3ncLTFoTFa8 24.151.19.17 ( talk) 03:15, 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)
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)
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. Ged UK 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
--->KJ, what do you think "Keynesian" means? '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 23:27, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
2 editors have done a lot of good clean-up and tightening. Aside from restoring the mediated Krugman language, I have two other thoughts:
I'm afraid that removing those two quotes weakens the article. Please consider re-inserting. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Category:Conservatism in the United States" relevant - Schiff refers to himself as libertarian conservative [12].-- Polmandc ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Schiff complains about the present article -- Cesar Tort 16:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
Kitco
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."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)
Why is the lead paragraph so huge? I propose to cut it back to one sentence. Geraldshields11 ( talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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 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)
This
edit request to
Peter Schiff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)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)
"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".
"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".
"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 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."
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. It's out.
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".
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)
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)
References