Talk:Freakonomics

message: I added the POV tag, as I feel that the passage "However, this can still explained by the fact that, in sumo, wrestlers are required to fight strategically for the entire course of tournament. One may lose a match the next day if he exhausts himself on his not so important match. So the statistical outcome of the match can be explained entirely by such behaviour rather than cheating." is in the article for no other reason than to disparage the book. The user who added these sentences, User:FWBOarticle, states that this counter-argument "appeared in [a] Japanese sumo magazine," but does not mention which magazine, link to said article, quote the article (or, if the article is quoted verbatim, the use of quotation marks), state when the article was written, or note whether or not the article was a direct response to the points made in "Freakonomics." I am not going to delete this section of the Wiki entry for "Freakonomics" myself, but I do not feel that there is a reason for it to exist. Kicking222 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the book, they address that.  The next time the same pairs of wrestlers meet, the one who was 8-6 the first time has a significant advantage.  In further meetings, it goes back to the predicted 50-50. RogueNinjatalk 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section header 

message: ISBN of Revised edition should be added... I don't have the book. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: The authors attempt to demonstrate the power of data mining. Many of their results emerge from Levitt's analysis of various databases, and his creativity in asking the right questions. For example, cheating in the Chicago school system is implicated by detailed analysis of student's answers to multiple choice questions. But first Levitt asks, "What would the pattern of answers look like if the teacher cheated?" The simple answer - difficult questions at the end of a section will be more correct than easy ones at the beginning.
What exactly does the bolded line mean? Why does that happen? Is the wording just cryptic or am I just too slow to get it... Alveolate 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The multiple-choice tests they're talking about have easier questions at the beginning and progressively harder questions toward the end.  Since the earlier questions are easier, you would expect that honest results would show a higher number of correct answers near the beginning than they do toward the end.  On the other hand, if a teacher is cheating, what you would expect would be a higher number of correct answers near the end, because the teacher is filling in correct answers to questions the students left blank.  76.118.82.108 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  need clarification... 

message: The usual convention is to write about text in the present tense--called literary present tense.  If this convention is being followed on Wikipedia, the sentence in this article that reads "In Chapter 2 of Freakonomics, the authors wrote of their visit to folklorist Stetson Kennedy's Florida home where the topic of Kennedy's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan were discussed." should, if this convention is being followed read "In Chapter 2 of Freakonomics, the authors write of their visit to folklorist Stetson Kennedy's Florida home where the topic of Kennedy's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan was discussed." And actually "is discussed" would also be better here, but is not as crucial.  I'm not sure if this convention is generally followed in wikipedia, though.  Is it?
Jthepp (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary Present Tense 

message: I have read much of the book and came to Wikipedia to find a brief, summarized passage on the critical reception of Freakonomics. I will not expand on my own opinions, except to say that I was disappointed that, while most books and movies on this website have such a section, this article has, for some reason, been content to use the book's status as a best-seller to communicate its reception into the academic and critical community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.208.148 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception 

message: This book is a con. It is almost entirely (some very poor) sociology, with some social psychology and some sprinklings of economics. Just Google "freakonomics sociology" and you'll find corroboration for this. It seems 'sociology' is too scary a label however. Seen as too subversive or irrelevant, but 'economics' and 'economists' are somehow seen as OK. The authors probably even fool themselves. Surely some recognition of this, and some mention of criticism (aside from the Romanian abortion point), should be made in the article?  Hsjdg67 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is merely your personal opinion and has little if any place on this page. You could write a review at Amazon incorporating your opinion -- but not here. --Michael K SmithTalk  16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually sociology

message: Someone is serieal vandalizing this page, it might be a good idea to protect it to stop this... Corhen (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  may require protection 

message: Why is there no link on the page to the current location of the Freakonomics blog, especially if it has ceased to appear in the NYT? There's a brief discussion, and a screenshot (outdated, apparently), but no link that I can find. --Michael K SmithTalk  16:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blog? 

message: Substituted at 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Since the original 2005 book has now spawned three sequels, as well as a website, twitter feed, film and radio show that's really most popular as a podcast (and has a problematic wikipedia article, ditto with the film), I suggest they be combined into this article. I don't have the time (nor chutzpah) to do so, but did notice when checking the website this morning for the radio show I missed last evening (still not there), that the website may now be the umbrella appropriate here. The books and radio show are now tabs (along with a tab touting the authors' lectures through the Harry Walker agency, which I suspect may have created the problem articles) on the website's pages (and the film trailer under the extra's tab). FYI, I'm also curious why firefox53 is labeling the site's adobe flash as a problem, but haven't the time nor tech savvy to investigate.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  website now umbrella; revise to incorporate subarticles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freakonomics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216142918/http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf to http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified