Talk:Roubini Global Economics

[Untitled]

I am not sure how neutral this article can be with the only reference is the company's website. As per, Wikipedia guidelines independent sources are required. speednat (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no NPOV problem. The article does not promote the company in any way. Maybe some other tag would be appropriate, although I think there are too many unnecessary tags tacked to articles. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that this is an NPOV issue. I am not saying that they are self-promoting only that the company's website is the only source for reference. this is a clear-cut case of not using an independent source. All tagging the article does is allows those that want to clean it up the ability to, as it will be listed for the need to be cleaned up (additional soucing). In fact rather than deleting the tag, you could fix this problem. The other alternative is to recommend deletion of the article, however I felt giving an opportunity to fix the article was a better angle. Also the tag is clear to not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. I don't believe resolution means you stating your opinion. (Take no offense at my bluntness, please) Thanks speednat (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a POV issue? Some facts *are* best gotten from the subject. Why would you ask someone else what RGE does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.244.1 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote from Wikipedia guidelines on Independent sources

"An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release. This is not to disregard the role such primary source material can play in writing an article, but serves to ensure an article can be written from a balanced viewpoint."

Let me point out that the only reason this is an issue in this article is that the only reference is the company. I know nothing of the company, so I can't but if you know from other references some information than maybe you could add the other reference. speednat (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new reference - one of hundreds accessible with a simple google search. I love my Wiki collegues, but sometimes, I wonder if we're just being pedantic for the sake of it. Anyone on this thread could have discovered this. http://usflibraries.typepad.com/businessresources/2009/07/rge-monitor.html. I've added it to the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27yanks (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is biased mostly because it is written by someone related to RGE. Except for Roubini, does anyone know from RGE? Is it comparable to any research institution? I do not think it is worth of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitorias (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]