Talk:Amity Shlaes

message: User  recently added the following regarding Ms Shlaes's newly released book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.
:Booklist, the librarian's periodical, says, "Shlaes' accent on personalities is an appealing avenue into her skeptical critique of the New Deal." A link to the book review is available here
Unfortunately, you need a subscription to Booklist's to read its reviews, and I'm not sure that linking to the Amazon page is the proper way to cite that review. Moreover, that reads too much like advertising to me.
BTW, I have seen a couple of very positive reviews of this book in my regular reading. Cheers, CWC 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shlaes had an article about the book in The Wall Street Journal. There's a copy at http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26390,filter.all/pub_detail.asp. Cheers, CWC 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That article has now appeared at OpinionJournal.com, where links never expire. See http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281. CWC 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the OpinionJournal.com appearance as an External Link. CWC 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not every boook should have the word 'controversy' after it.... only the one's that are controversial, such as this one, in which the author deliberately misrepresented the facts, and then was publicly called to account for it. Dlabtot (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Forgotten Man'' 

message: I removed line beginning "She is distincly [sic] neoconservative....." Firstly, Ms. Shlaes' support for free markets is conspicuously un-Neoconservative. Neoconservatism means something (or at least it used to) other than merely “ultra right-wing.” Secondly, the statement that Ms. Shlaes has a “profound sense of self promotion” is merely ad hominem. If there is evidence that she is a grand self-promoter please cite it. Thirdly, the implication that Ms. Shlaes is somehow involved in her mention in the Bloomberg entry is simply unfair.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninoscalia1986 (talk • contribs). 
Neoconservative or neoliberal or Laissez-faire?  Since she is mostly an economics writer and not a political writer, laissez-faire is more correct.  Neoconservative implies loss of personal freedom in additon to loss of economic freedom.  See Nolan chart. 71.131.3.27 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed line "She is distincly [sic] neoconservative, with a profound sense of self promotion. She is the only Bloomberg reporter mentioned on the wikipedia entry for Bloomberg LP." 

message: The article doesn't have her year of birth.  Intelius gives her age as 46, so I put in that she was born ca. 1961.Jmkleeberg 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Birth 

message: "Ms Shlaes is a controversial figure, sometimes accused of subverting facts in order to to promote neo-conservative views."
Well, says who? Nothing cited, and rather out of step. Should it be removed from the article?
PJayC 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing a Cite for this? 

message: The paragraph about the two Katrina articles should go.  First, because it's not a fair characterization of the main point of the first column, which was that 9/11 made Bush more willing to put Federal resources into Katrina.  Second, and more important, because to single out these columns gives them too much weight in the article.  It's not as if Ms. Shlaes is primarily known for writing about Katrina.  --66.28.243.126 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's WP:OR unless there are reliable secondary sources about the columns.  Editors don't get to pick and choose which columns are notable.  THF (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a source for the claim she was fired.JQ (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina 

message: This edit substituted a Wikipedia editor's judgment about the controversy for that of what a secondary source thought notable about the controversy.  Because of the WP:NOR rules, we prefer secondary sources to Wikipedia editors' interpretation of primary sources. Because of WP:WEIGHT it is also inappropriate to include lengthy ad hominem sections of Krugman's angry screed, unless we're also going to include equally lengthy encomiums from George Will and others. THF (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krugman controversy 

message: We should add a  template to the Forgotten Man controversy section. THF (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked Forbes article (reinserted before locking) also supports Shlaes, but it's not a good source at all. The Leonhardt review would be much better. OTOH, I don't think there are many people today who would defend the National Recovery Administration at least as regards the chicken pricing code. The real dispute is over the Works Progress Administration. My attempt to spell out the point of the dispute was reverted several times.JQ (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the current section is excessivelly POV, and the fairly neutral IHP review would give a bit of balance at least.  BTW, I recall some politicians during "wage price controls" discussions saying they should be government run and mandatory, so I am not sure they all learned the same lessons we did in Economics. BTW, I think the PWA is also at issue, as is the CCC whose clients are counted as "employed." Collect (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shlaes doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the WPA: six or seven passing mentions in the whole book.  WEIGHT would suggest there's no reason to mention it in the main article, let alone the biography. THF (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Collect, can you give some citations on wage and price controls? They haven't been a live issue in the US for several decades AFAIK, and the context then (Nixon's failed attempt to hold prices down) was the exact opposite of the failed NRA attempt to raise prices by fiat. The core of the dispute is whether workers for the PWA & CCC should be counted as employed. Shlaes may not have said much to justify her decision to class them as unemployed, but that doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be mentioned.JQ (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I could try -- the subject is very complex, but no nation has ever really been successful combattibg markets that I know of.  People in the CCC definitely knew they were not "real jobs" however, while those working on roads etc. were in a different group. The "arts projects" were also regarded as temp positions.  Collect (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit 

message: How about deleting, from the current version, quotes that are meant to show Shlaes as a prescient observer (Fannie and Freddie) or to showcase her views (WSJ op-ed), and also leave out the instances where she's been glaringly wrong (Katrina, recession). The Forgotten Man section could give a reasonable idea of her views and the critical reaction. I'm not thrilled with this solution, but it's hard to see a better one emerging. JQ (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about restoring the favorable review of FM as well? Right now the only thrid party material is fully negative.  Hardly NPOV, eh? Collect (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible compromise 

message: *The only controversy with TFM is the fact that it criticizes, and rightfully so, despite what Krugman (who has proven himself consistently wrong on a subject he is suppose to be an expert on), the legacy of the Democrats idol, FDR. Facts are facts people and artificial GDP growth, staggaring unemployment, worsening economic times, and Keynesian economics, both used by Herbert Hoover and FDR, didn't work. Proper citation can be found in the library of congress and actually look back at the records. The New Deal failed. It's a fact. Citing blogs, liberal commentators, and conservative ones, is not in compliance with NPOV policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.111 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: WP:BLP states "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Although there are some grey areas here, it seems pretty clear that a blog published by a magazine (such as Atlantic or The Economist) is a source similar to an opinion column in the same magazine. Similarly, if a political organization criticises the subject of a BLP, the notability of the criticism doesn't depend on the format. If the facts are clear (as in the Gramm and Katrina cases) and the only question is whether anyone notable has mentioned them, that should be decisive.JQ (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on reliable sources

message: Not sure how, but would it be possible to convey in some way that of the numerous honors and awards mentioned in this entry, virtually all were given by conservative organizations?  Not to mention this seems misleading. 75.35.209.135 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honors and Awards 

message: There may be something of merit here, but as written, I can't figure out what the point is (vis a vis Shlaes) and therefore can't fix it.  Therefore deleting, but paragraph is here in its entirety if someone wants to fix it and put it back.
:The International Herald Tribune review by David Leonhardt includes "In a unanimous ruling the court found (a code) to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. On the day of the ruling, Justice Louis Brandeis took aside one of Roosevelt's aides and told him, "This is the end of this business of centralization." The National Recovery Administration, the agency that had gone after the Schechters, soon dropped hundreds of similar cases and closed its doors." Leonhardt continues "other attempts to fine-tune the economy truly did fail." [21] On the other hand, Leonhardt endorses the criticism of Rauchway and others that "Shlaes exaggerates joblessness in the 1930s by counting many people who worked in temporary relief programs as unemployed".--99.141.5.40 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't see the point?  It's a review in IHT. Perhaps lengthy quote could be trimmed or eliminated. Dlabtot (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, its a complete non-sequitur. Last sentence of paragraph appears to be an endorsement of criticism of book.  It's the preceding sentences that need context.  Since criticism in last sentence is "on the other hand," I assume that preceding statements support Shlaes's argument, but impossible to tell which ones or how.  After stating that this is in a review, paragraph discusses a supreme court case (which isn't named or described) that puts "an end to centralization."  Then there is something about attempts to fine tune the economy.  On the whole, paragraph adds nothing to the discussion that precedes it.  I don't want to get into an edit war by deleting. Anyone else have any comments on whether this paragraph should stay, go, or somehow be improved? --99.140.250.222 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the material in the article from this particular review -- a fragmented quote about a Supreme Court case on whether the New Deal could outlaw price discounting in the chicken industry -- was almost incoherent when I read it today.  Without going back to the original source, I do not see how a reader could even understand what the quote was about.  Certainly it did not capture the key points of the reviewer's overall argument.  I went back to the original source today, and have incorporated an alternative quote which, I think, gives a somewhat better sense of where the reviewer agrees and disagrees with the author's critique. Nandt1 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Paragraph re Leonhardt Review 

message: Citation #20 "Wasting Away in Hooverville" by Jonathan Chait from a March 18, 2009 edition of The New Republic has a link to just The New Republic's website and not the article itself.  I would highly recommend a link directly to article as the link is kind of meaningless otherwise.  Here is a direct link:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/wasting-away-hooverville
I would make the change myself, but as thesis is a controversial article and such any change I make would, understandably, probably be reverted to assure I hadn't done something nefarious.  Thus could someone with some history on editing this article make this tiny correction?  I am aware there is much controversy, but I think whatever side you may take on this article, a correct link for a citation that is already included should be something everyone can agree upon.
131.215.32.217 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Link for citation #20 

message: I'm confused. Amity Shlaes only has a B.A. in English, yet she has lectured a graduate-level course at NYU? Don't most universities require graduate degrees, and preferably Ph.D.s, in order to teach? Is some of her education missing from this article? --JHP (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Academic qualifications?" section at the top of this talk page.98.110.35.22 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education? 

message: This article's previous account of Roth's review quoted a partial sentence that expounded Schlaes's position -- crucially omitting the opening words "She points out" -- as if it constituted an outright endorsement of Shlaes's overall argument.  Actually, if you read the piece as a whole, the author tried to present both Shlaes's and Krugman's positions; the piece ends remarkably agnostically.  I have tried to give a balanced account of Roth's piece. Nandt1 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Balanced, yes, but frankly I don't see that that paragraph really adds much to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a reasonable question which other users may want to consider.  For myself, I did not want to be accused of deleting all reference to a review that some users have clearly seen as favorable to Shlaes, but at the same time I thought it unacceptable that the review should be misrepresented as it was before.  If there is broad support for dropping the Roth reference altogether, I would not oppose it. Nandt1 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Aiming for a balanced presentation of Furchtgott-Roth article

message: Only a BA from Yale is listed, but later it says she is an Assoc. Prof. of Economics somewhere. Is there a degree missing? or if not, how do you get to teach economics without a degree in the subject?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.78.2 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky has only a degree in linguistics, but he lectures on politics, history, economics, and many other topics. I don't hear anyone complaining.98.110.35.22 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky has a Ph.D. — goethean 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Qualifications?

message: :{multiple issues|
:{POV|date=August 2013}
:{lead too short|date=August 2013}
* These tags were listed. No issues were specifically cited on the talk pages. People always do this here at Wiki. They get a bug up their arse, don't like the POV of an article, but then do not follow up. Unless someone comes up with specific objections, I'm removing the tags on 05/15/2014. 10stone5 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Nobody responded, so I removed all the above tags. 10stone5 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV other tags 

message: The pro-Shlaes content is given too much weight in this article. Generally, praise for the subject of an article should not be quoted (and often not even mentioned) unless it adds something substantive to the article. Detailed listings of lectures, articles, and other minor publications supported only by primary sources is inappropriate as well - we aren't a CV database like LinkedIn. All in all substantial trimming is needed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:DrFleischman: The article looks fine to me, so I wouldn't be sure what to trim. Would you like to trim it so that the POV tag can be removed please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: User:DrFleischman: I agree with you and I would join in encouraging you do perform the requisite trimming. Dlabtot (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag, February 2015 

message: In the opening sentence, Shlaes' description as a "libertarian" was reverted and switched to "classical liberal" without explanation. "Libertarian" was supported by this reliable source:
* 
"Classical liberal" is being supported by these sources:
*  This is a self-published blog and therefore not a reliable source.
* . This is a self-published self-promotional source and therefore not a reliable source. It also doesn't say that Shlaes is a classical liberal.
Per our policy on verifiability, all disputed content must be supported by reliable sources. If there is a conflict among reliable sources then the conflict must be described neutrally. In this case we have no conflict: the reliable source says Shales is libertarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian or classical liberal? 

message: The article has been reverted to say in the lead section that Shlaes authored four New York Times bestsellers, but this isn't supported by reliable sources for all four of Shlaes' books. There also appears to be an undue emphasis on the bestselling status of the books throughout the article. Per our policy on verifiability, all content should be verifiable with reliable sources, and should be presented neutrally. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bestsellers 

message: , the fact that Shlaes is serving as a resident scholar at King's College doesn't appear to be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. I think we need an independent secondary source, rather than a primary source, before we include this detail. Your thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  King's College