Talk:Steven Landsburg

message: Landsburg may or may not be politically neutral but I am (a) not sure how this would be known/what exactly it means and (b) surely isn't appropriate as the first adjective about someone whose primary cause of fame is his work in economics. So I got rid of that.
RocArt 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Politically Neutral"

message: "He has also said that if the poor can't pay for a life-saving treatment they shoud die"
This seems a misrepresentation or oversimplification of Landburg's position to me, and I assume it is based on his Slate article of Jan 3, 2006.  Seems reasonable to comment on, and it is controversial, but I think we should be more NPOV.  Will edit.
RocArt 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation of views?

message: Do we have a birth date?  Do we have his undergrad school?  Religion?  Recall he mentioned something about Jewish ancestors in some farm piece in Slate, but can't find details.RocArt 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio details

message: I removed the comment about Landsburg's exams being notoriously difficult and weird; if anything, low grades are because he does not give as much partial credit as other professors at the University. And isn't he most known for his great taste in fashion? ;) Sibpin 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. I heard his newest book, "More Sex is Safer Sex", is kind of stupid from a psych-major's perspective. Of course, that's only what I'm told. What makes it ironic (if true, at least) is that, in the Armchair Economist, he complains about a physicist haphazardly dabbling in economics, and yet a newspaper publishes this physicist's opinion. "More Sex is Safer Sex" can be readily described as a (largely reductionist) haphazard dabbling in the other social sciences. 124.106.233.81 05:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exam Comment 

message: Regardless of why the exams are difficult, they are what they are. Please don't delete truth.
:lollerskates BonniePrinceCharlie 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Landsburg's Slate column suggests it would be reasonable to spend anywhere from 8% to 62% of our incomes fighting global warming.  Yuslo cites this column and says "In particular he belives global warming is best ignored".  This is the second time I've corrected this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divcurl (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: I moved the latest controversy material from the lede to the appropriate section and added a source about a group trying to get him fired.  I think such a large bit of material in the lede was a case of  undue weight being placed on a current event.  I do think a brief mention of this and the previous controversy would be appropriate in the lede, but I failed to find wording I was happy with. If someone can find a sentence that does the whole thing justice, I think adding it to the lede would be good. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this move. Unless he gets fired, I doubt this issue will ever be lead-worthy.  But the lead does need something about his various dustups.  I'll try to work on it.  Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies in lede? 

message: The sources both appear to be self-published, with just the subject offering the information himself. I can't find any other references online besides this, so presumably it should be deleted per Wikipedia's reference standards? Please respond if anyone objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nws103 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spent Time at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton" Source Problem 

message: I can't find any mention of this book in Google. GalPedy (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for "A Mathematical Introduction to General Relativity and Cosmology"?