Talk:Raj Chetty

Criticism

It should add the Criticism Section, cause his works are harshly criticized by a novel economists who got nobel economics prize. Plus, Chetty's data problems are very controversial and misleading which imply inaccurate and biased. Why not put those on section? https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/05/14/two-leading-economists-disagree-about-the-flagging-american-dream, https://uchv.princeton.edu/events/raj-chetty-stanford-university-lecture-ii-neighborhood-effects-childhood-environment-and, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/410090-erroneous-reporting-on-inequality-makes-matters-worse Shfur0306 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Place of birth in lead

I am unsure why we are including "Indian-born" or "Indian-American" in the lead. This individual is notable for events that occurred as a United States citizen in the USA, not in India, and India does not permit dual citizenship. Awards gained in a foreign country does not warrant inclusion of that country in the lead, and that too before the stated subject's own nationality. Even if we would like to include birth place in lead, I am unsure why it should be included prior to the individual's nationality when it could easily be incorporated later on in the lead. Considering this is a deviation from the stated rules of wikipedia biographies as stated in MOS:Ethnicity, I would say that any user arguing otherwise should bring forth their argument for inclusion and inclusion in the specific way they would like prior to altering the default. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apoorva Iyer: His research covers immigrant economics including Indians. He was also awarded India's fourth highest civilian award the Padma Shri which is given to citizens or Indian-origin persons. His birthplace is clearly relevant here, by every merit of the guideline. Gotitbro (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if his birthplace is relevant, why are we including it prior to his nationality in the lead? Why not include it in the second line or later down in the lead? He is not primarily notable for his Indian birth. And again, winning a foreign award is not reason to include birthplace ahead of nationality in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That is the precedent for persons (from countries which do not allow dual citizenship), the birth place/previous nationality goes first. More importantly that is how is referred to (Indian-American) in the majority of sources. Gotitbro (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, that is not the precedent. MOS:Ethnicity makes that pretty clear. Other sources may choose to do so, but that certainly does not make it Wikipedia's precedent or appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article without sufficient justification. I am still unsure why we are including it in the first sentence prior to the individual's nationality. I am willing to compromise and allow for inclusion in the lead, but I disagree with inclusion in the first sentence and that too, prior to the individual's nationality. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing in the guideline about the latter nationality going before or alone if the origin is relevant, the former country goes before in the description usually on WP or otherwise see these dictionary entries for example: [1], [2]. This is how it goes if we are to include it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Those examples are firstly not from Wikipedia and secondly are not exactly relevant to the discussion. I am not asking how other sources may choose to include birthplace in a biography, but rather asking what our specific justification is for inclusion prior to nationality in the lead of the wikipedia article. Just because other sources do it does not make it necessarily appropriate. I would say that for individuals who have achieved their notability primarily as a certain nationality, it would in fact be inappropriate to include prior to that nationality. It would be more appropriate to include later in the lead. Again, I am willing to compromise and allow for inclusion later in the lead. I still fail to see how it is so relevant that it be included prior to the nationality under which the individual actually attained notability. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are all over the place. First you were talking about citizenship, then notability/guidelines and now simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not matter what you or I think if it does not violate any guideline we should be going by what sources say, they will be accorded the highest level of relevance per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The examples are appropriate, they show how the highest level of English-language sources treat subjects. I don't think I have anything more to add to the discussion here. Gotitbro (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear in my reasoning. Just because an outside source states the individual's birthplace in the lead does not automatically make it relevant for Wikipedia's lead. That is my only point. Outside convention does not automatically mean we follow suit on Wikipedia, and I think MOS:Ethnicity is pretty clear about that. But I understand you feel birthplace is relevant to the lead, so then I asked why we think we should place it before nationality in the first sentence. I still haven't received an answer beyond "this is outside convention". That is insufficient, and I think it is perfectly justified to probe further into why we are doing something that way. Also, you misunderstand the policy WP:Sticktosource. There is no question about WP:Sticktosource as we are not discussing whether something is in contempt of its source origin or whether something we have included in the article from a source does not reflect the source it came from. Stating someone is "American" as opposed to "Indian-born American" is in no way changing the accuracy of the content or meaning or implication, which is what that policy is about. Also, I have been more than willing to compromise this whole time but really have not seen any such willingness from your end. I am unsure why. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Move (back) to Harvard

Currently, the article says, " In June 2018, Raj Chetty's frequent coauthor John Friedman announced that Chetty will be returning to Harvard." But then it does not follow up by saying when he returned. I think it is clearly more important when he moved than when some-one else said he would return. Only from the lead do we know that he is currently at Harvard. Surely there is a source for when he got back East. Kdammers (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)