Talk:Nouriel Roubini

his nationality?

There is a contradiction in this article, it states that he was born in Turkey yet further down it says Iran. According to an interview he stated that he was born in Iran and lived in Turkey. http://web.archive.org/web/20080420214641/http://www.janera.com/janera_words.php?id=44. Which source do we take? The one stating he was born in Iran is from him in an interview the other is stated by the new york times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.101.93 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Roubini Homepage link at the bottom of the article also has Turkey. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is the kind of thing that he is more likely to be right about than the NYT. Additionally, major statements about his nationality in the article seem baseless. The claim that he is Iranian-American has no citation and I see no evidence for it, other than the claim he "lived briefly in Iran." Is that really enough to identify him as Iranian? Down in Categories, he's included as an Iranian Jew and "American people of Iranian-Jewish descent." I did get the FEELING from the article that his parents must have been Iranian Jews. But is that really how we're doing this?

2602:306:BC65:5FC9:1088:675E:B348:D256 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding his nationality to the first sentence

According to this page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), his nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph.-- And Rew 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC) - His nationality is not American

Maybe it should be rephrased per nationality guidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed an obvious typo in the first sentence. Rectified it immediately. I kept his nationality the same, though. --CapitalistOverlord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Sloppy use of quotes

This article uses far too many quotes. Many of them are unsourced. Sometimes even entire paragraphs are quotes lifted from news articles. I even fixed one quote that was a false attribution. Fortune magazine had written about Roubini, but in this article Fortune's words were attributed to Roubini himself. This article also often uses present tense for quotes that were made in the past, e.g. "Roubini says..." rather than "Roubini said...". Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a news article. Go easy on the quotes and make sure that the few quotes you do use are referenced. --JHP (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

link to IDEAS

If one watches TV, one might get the impression that Roubini is one of the most prominent economists of our age. In the acedmic world, his impact is thus far rather moderate, as he is ranked 410 amongst economists they track for citation impact. Is this material pertinent enough for the lead? Mwalla (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla

I moved it to fit better within the overall context of the lead. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoraton of strange edits

Some recent edits by user 69.177.90.40 appear not well thought out. For instance, they took the following sentence in the lead,

"Because his descriptions of the current economic crisis have proven to be accurate, he is today a major figure in the U.S. and international debate about the economy."

and replaced it with (emphasis added),

"Because some of his descriptions of the current economic crisis have proven to be descriptive, he is often quoted today in some parts of the news media."

Ironically, the reason given in the summary for the edits above were "cleaned up duplicate and advertorial material." Yet the detailed factual material in the original was then replaced by duplicated, non-factual, and essentially meaningless text. It should obviously be fixed.

As a suggestion, major edits that are based on personal interpretations and opinions only, and which remove valid citations and quotes, especially in the bio of a living person should be done with more care and discussed in the talk section first, to avoid such restorations.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Restoring deletions by possible NPOV and COI source

An editor has deleted portions of the article containing early interviews by stating, "Janera does not meet NPOV criteria and is not a legitimate publication." This is clearly untrue as Janera is an online magazine with numerous interviews with people from all professions and their purpose is stated:

"Through our salons held in cities around the world, our Web site and our weekly newsletters, we take international affairs out of the academic and activist circles and bring global topics to a diverse, savvy and influential urban audience. By generating deeper understanding through these encounters— both online and in-person—we strive to be a catalyst for change throughout the world."

Another editor, with a similar IP address, has said on this talk page that they were an investment author and have disputed Roubini's opinions by numerous similar deletions in the past. If the same editor is making these changes, that in itself would amount to a violation of NPOV and COI guidelines, and should thereby stop. They may also amount to vandalism.

Suggest that any further mass deletions be discussed first. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of marital status

Is it normal practice in an encyclopedia to draw attention to a non-event? The mention in this article that Roubini has never married is pointless. Does W. have guidelines about such inclusions?Aliotra (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority of bios I've come across have a "Personal life" section which almost always goes into the person's marriages, children, divorces, etc. Some go into details way beyond the basics while this one seems pretty lean in comparison.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Subtitle color

I'm changing the color of the title bar to blue as it gives a better contrast to the photo, IMO. Because the photo already gives an orange tint to his face, having an orange bar above accentuates the overall orange tone. Blue, on the other hand, counteracts the orange tint and gives the photo a more neutral tone, by complementing the background blue. This is a BRD edit and some consensus should be allowed before reverting. Please compare and vote.

• Blue --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is "too positive" about Roubini

The NYTimes piece that is already referenced by this article says (these are quotes):

• Roubini was known to be a perpetual pessimist, what economists call a “permabear.”
• Anirvan Banerji ... noted that Roubini’s predictions did not make use of mathematical models

There is an old saying, "a clock that is stopped shows the correct time twice a day", and in the same way, somebody who is always predicting bad will sometimes be right. This wikipedia article only cherrypicks the positive comments; it should talk about both sides of the issue. 71.190.72.157 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with above. False predictions, theories etc should also be listed. (11Dec2010)

ha ha!

I was logging on to say that the article is pervaded with snide remarks about Roubini obviously written by people who simply disagree with him. That is not NPOV!

Actio (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement?

This article is so laudatory, it is like an advertisement. Comments are cherry-picked -- by and large, only the positive ones are included. In the lede alone, Roubini is called a "sage" and #2 among the worlds "public intellectuals," #4 of "global thinkers," one of the 100 "most influential people in the world" and a predictor of the economic crisis. Is this an ad for Roubini Global Economics or what? The reality is that these are all just opinions mined from various magazines. Just because something is quoted in a magazine somewhere doesn't mean it should be included in this article. There are opinions all across media that don't need inclusion here. Can this article just stick to facts about this man's life? Is that possible? ask123 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Laudatory," yes, since the cited quotes were mostly related to his being among the few who warned of the bubble. But it's far from an advertisement. The lead is a summary and the general descriptions give "neutral" 3rd party opinions. The body, 90% of the article, seems to be essential facts, so the tag is improperly used IMO. It would be best to add other neutral, and recent, cited opinions. Because citations, all from reliable sources are laudatory is far from an advertisement. The tag, used mostly for products, does not belong. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag or no tag, this article is not neutral. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be dispassionate -- not laudatory or critical, except where there is a near global consensus on certain exceptional opinions (for instance, a newspaper condemning Hitler or praising Ghandi might be mentioned in passing).

I'm not out on a limb here. There are a lot of cherry picked quotes in this article. The magazine rankings, for instance, are completely inappropriate. The reader doesn't need to know that X Magazine ranked Roubini #whatever on their list of most "influential thinkers." That list is just some crap that X Magazine uses to sell copies -- it's not encyclopedic!

Also, opinions aren't neutral by definition. Don't get me wrong though. There are instances in which opinions are OK for inclusion in an encyclopedia article (for example, the aforementioned instances OR a recognized critic's opinion on a famous work of art). But this ins't one of those instances. This article just needs to be made more NPOV re: the cherry-picked quotations. Some should just be removed. ask123 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that saying something is "cherry picked" implies that it is just as simple to find negative cites. Your opinion without even a minimal effort to support it makes the product-related tag unjustified. You need to prove your facts by adding appropriate quotes, cites, whatever, but without such an effort it's no more than graffiti. You don't improve and edit an article by just dropping by, tagging it, and saying "It's too laudatory." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just hear me out. I'm saying forget the tag. I don't care if the tag isn't there. My point is that magazine rankings and excessive, unwarranted adulation do not belong in an encyclopedia article. It sullies the waters. You can collect all kinds of quotations and cited tidbits on a person - some will be positive, some will be negative. *But that doesn't mean that all of those quotations and tidbits should be included in an article.* Just because something has a citation doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. Instead of saying Roubini is the "best this" or the "smartest that," just list the facts. They'll speak for themselves. Unfortunately, the lede doesn't do that so well. It's like it's trying to prove a point that he's one of the world's pre-eminent thinkers. And it's trying to do so with rankings from magazine lists - which is beyond absurd. A magazine can operate as a purveyor of opinion - it can pump whomever it wants. But an encyclopedia isn't supposed to do that - and neither is Wikipedia.

My suggestion is to delete the list rankings. I'm simply bringing it up on this board before being bold and removing them. ask123 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, opinions are to be avoided regardless of whether or not they are "cherry-picked." And when there are unnecessary opinions in an article, the problem isn't fixed by simply adding an equal amount of the opposite opinion. It is fixed by removing the opinion that was put in in the first place. The goal here isn't to create a back-and-forth of positive and negative opinions backed by citations. IMO, that's appropriate for a message board, but I don't think it's right for here.

Lastly, there are many critics of Nouriel Roubini. Open your eyes. Just do a Google search of "roubini critics" for Christ's sake.

You also seem to be against tagging. I didn't "tag and run." My purpose was to start a discussion on this page about the article. I've done that. Tagging an article and then discussing it on the talk page is entirely acceptable. If you think I used the wrong tag, that's fine. But my conduct isn't inappropriate, certainly not "graffiti." Respectfully, ask123 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the lead are pure facts, the sort that can put people to sleep. The other parts of the lead cite brief descriptions from extremely good sources like Fortune, NY Times, Time and Foreign Policy who do not simply offer opinions. Their articles, cited there, are loaded with facts which support their descriptions, and the brief quotes in the lead are snippets. One of the reasons that their rankings and statements are helpful, if not necessary to the article, is that they confirm the notability of the biography.

I've added to a lot of film star bios, and it's typical to list their rewards in the lead. "So and so won 3 Academy Awards, 2 Golden Globes, etc." What you never see in a star's bio is how many times they failed to get nominated. That's assumed. So in some ways the essence of notability relies on laudatory aspects of their career. "Too laudatory?" Considering today's economic situation, maybe it's not laudatory enough. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First, just because another article does something doesn't mean it should be done here. There's plenty wrong with many of the other biographical articles on Wikipedia. Articles are works-in-progress, and, thus, I don't think mentioning that another article does something is a good argument.

Also, I'm not against opinions in all cases. As I said before, there are a number of cases in which opinions are not just OK but can be very helpful to the reader. In the case of this article, however, I see no excuse for many of these opinions (and less of an excuse for stacking them up side-by-side, giving an imbalanced perspective).

Just speaking of the magazine lists that appear in the article (because those sentences are what I have the biggest problem with), I see no reason for their inclusion. Many magazines, papers and websites publish these types of lists - they do so to sell issues and attract eyeballs. I see no reason for them to be included in this article or any other - with the exception of a few lists that are exceptional because they (a) they are so famous that they've entered the cultural lexicon and (b) they state a fact, not an opinion. The two that come to mind are the Forbes 400 or Fortune 500 lists. A ranking on one of those lists isn't a matter of opinion that can be debated. It is based on a numerical figure. On the other hand, the lists cited here (Prospect Magazine 's "world’s 100 greatest living public intellectuals"; Foreign Policy 's "top 100 global thinkers"; and Time 's "100 most influential people in the world") do not meet both of those criteria. Only one of those magazines is particularly well known outside of intellectual circles, and all of these magazines' lists state pure opinions, opinions that many "insiders" disagree with. Someone else or some other magazine may come up with an identically titled list that omits Roubini entirely. So why include these lists at all? IMO, there's no point. If one wants, they can always find a list somewhere with just about anyone on it. Respectfully, ask123 (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the section above Actio (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns here. I have added a POV tag. New worl (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Roubini's birth date

In the English wiki-version Nouriel Roubini was born March 28 in 1959. In the German version he was born March 29 1958. In his own blog he states that he was born in 1958 (http://nourielroubini.blogspot.de/2012/08/nouriel-roubini-biography-by-himself.html)

Which one is true now? 158.181.83.204 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) IDuEl

 Fixed per his own blog. Left day the same pending a source. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source for 29, which had been replaced by 28 without source ([1]). --79.204.231.82 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To improve NPOV

I have made some Google searches such as "Nouriel Roubini" wrong ( 369.000 results) and "Nouriel Roubini" wrong again (51.900). Here are some notable results ordered by year. Please add more. New worl (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2011

1. That guy who called the big one? Don’t listen to him - Boston.com
2. Nouriel Roubini Misses Another Prediction - CBS

Gold price predictions

Roubini has been a perma bull on gold as well.

October 2009: Gold Price: 1,069.

Nouriel Roubini: "I don't believe in gold. Gold can go up for only two reasons. [One is] inflation, and we are in a world where there are massive amounts of deflation because of a glut of capacity, and demand is weak. There's slack in the labor markets with unemployment peeking above 10 percent in all the advanced economies. So there's no inflation, and there's not going to be for the time being. The only other case in which gold can go higher, with deflation, is if you have Armageddon, if you have another depression. But we've avoided that tail risk as well. So all the gold bugs who say Gold is going to go to $1500 or $2000, they're just speaking nonsense. Without inflation, or without a depression, there's nowhere for gold to go. Yeah, Gold can go above $1000, but it can't move up 20-30% unless we end up in a world of inflation or another depression. I don't see either of those being likely for the time being. Maybe three or four years from now, yes. But not anytime soon." [2] My comment: From this point Gold went straight up to 1,900, almost 100% gain!. In June 2013 Roubini said gold would drop under $1,000 per ounce. Today it remains 25% above that figure. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWehle (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tweets on Bitcoin

Roubini stirred up a few headlines with a series of tweets broadly critical of Bitcoin. Two sources of straight-forward coverage are:

• Holm, Erik (2014-03-10). "Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin Is a 'Ponzi Game'". The Wall Street Journal.
• Clinch, Matt (2014-03-10). "Roubini launches stinging attack on bitcoin". CNBC.

Some articles used the tweets more as a launchpad to cover the issues in more detail. I'm not sure a series of tweets is worthy of mention here, but they are getting reliable source coverage, and that in itself is kind of impressive for an economist outside the government. :-) Agyle (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I second the opinion that it is impressive and worthy of mention. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Europe's short vacation

The following link from the "Writings" section was removed as not functioning:

Other writings include:

• Europe’s Short Vacation: Europe's Short Vacation. Guest commentary by Nouriel Roubini. May 1, 2012. Available Online. Accessed on May 10, 2012.

This commentary by Roubini may be an interesting insight into his thoughts, but we need a functioning link.Rgdboer (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

See also ?

I think this page is missing a "see also" section, as almost all wiki pages have (and yes, it is written like advertising, as somebody pointed above). For example, I can provide a list of persons called "Dr.Doom" which are better known, in fact, never heard about this guy till now.Big fan of Peter Schiff here :P (albeit we don't share all the opinions). Joking apart, there have to be a lot of economists there out, with similar views or "results" worth mentioning. LaurV (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The advertising now seems to have been partially addressed. Though recently some new editor came along slashing out a few RS supported paragraphs they did not like "because he is a public figure". Those should be re-added; there was no wp reason to delete them. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:D407:BCE0:52F5:A808 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing?

This article has many of the indicia of paid editing. 146.203.129.25 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)