Talk:Amity Shlaes

The Forgotten Man

User 66.9.150.10 (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

I've added the OpinionJournal.com appearance as an External Link. CWC 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

George Will reviewed the book in this column. CWC 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the heading "The Forgotten Man controversy?" What's the "controversy?" That some people don't agree with the book? Is this the first book in the history of the English speaking world that someone didn't agree with? That's every book, isn't it? For every book, there is someone who doesn't agree. So should every book title get the word "controversy" after it? There's really nothing too controversial about the book anyway, it just contradicts the "received wisdom" about the history of the Great Depression. SecretaryNotSure (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Not quite. The facts are there, they are just interpeted differently. That is not the same thing as misrepresentation - tho it might suit some who don't like the author to confuse the two, I agree. 12.152.78.2 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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."

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) 22:05:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

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)

Year of Birth

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)

Needing a Cite for this?

"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)

Katrina

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)

It's fair to say that the Katrina articles should not have taken so much space, but given the place made to other articles she wrote, as well as the possibly controversial role they have had her career, a mention of them would make sense. I'm adding them in a shorter way, please feel free to improve. Farialima (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I've added a source for the claim she was fired.JQ (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Krugman controversy

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)

Phil Gramm paragraph

This paragraph:

In July 2008, Shlaes wrote a column defending Senator Phil Gramm's comment that Americans were "whiners" with respect to the economy. Shlaes endorsed Gramms's argument that the United States was not in a true recession, saying that at the time, the US GDP had not shrunk during two consecutive quarters, which is commonly thought to be the technical definition of a recession, an argument which has since been undermined by the National Bureau of Economic Research decision to declare that a US recession began in December of 2007. Since she penned those words the unemployment rate as calculated by the National Bureau of Labor Statistics has risen from 5.6% to 8.1% as of February 2009. Moreover the US Bureau of Economic Analysis now says that the US GDP contracted at a 0.5% annualized pace in the third quarter and a 6.2% annualized pace in the fourth quarter.

is original research and synthesis. If someone explicitly criticized Shlaes for not accurately anticipating the course of the economy over the next nine months, there might be some relevance to the article, and one can cite that secondary source, but she simply wrote an op-ed that made an accurate observation about the state of the economy in June. THF (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The criticism of Shlaes made above has been put forward in a number of venues. I've given a cite. And, it's worth remembering, she made an important claim about the state of the economy that was subsequently shown to be wrong at the time she made it (at least according to the authoritative US body on the question). If you want that fact to be excluded from the article, you should have a better reason than you've offered so far.JQ (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You've given blog cites in violation of WP:BLP and WP:SPS. Stop it, and stop edit-warring to violate Wikipedia policy on a BLP. THF (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You've repeatedly deleted criticism of Shlaes from all kinds of sources, for example what you describe above as "Krugman's angry screed" in the New York Times, newspaper editorials and a range of magazine and political sites. You haven't responded significantly to talk page comments. If you look at the number of editors whose work you've reverted on one ground or another, it is clear who is engaged in edit warring here.JQ (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to enforce the WP:OR and WP:NPOV rules; if anything, I've kept a light touch, because the current version of the article is in violation of NPOV thanks to the WP:COATRACK of criticism. THF (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain this claim? Are you suggesting that the apparent point of the paras you dislike (Critics say that Shlaes has made partisan claims that have been either self-contradictory or blatantly wrong) is a coatrack for some other point (if so what?). Or are you saying that the specific instances are a coatrack for the general point. If that's the case, I'll point out that you would certainly claim WP:SYN if the point were made directly.JQ (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As regards POV, you've repeatedly inserted "Shlaes noted" (which implies Wikipedia endorsement) for my "Shlaes stated", added qualifying adjectives such as "liberal" to Paul Krugman (I deleted this, as well as references to his Nobel Prize) and puffed up the insignificant comment from a Forbes writer and former bureaucrat.JQ (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Krugman wasn't making an economic point in a peer-reviewed journal related to his Nobel-prize-winning expertise in trade policy; he was making a political point wearing his hat as liberal firebrand NY Times op-ed columnist. The current version says "Shlaes said," and I don't see a problem with that, or understand why you're arguing over older versions that no one is defending. WP:PSTS says we rely on secondary sources, not primary sources, which is what I did in citing Forbes's reference to the spat.

By all means describe Krugman as "economist and NYT columnist" if you want, but there's no Wikipedia rule that justifies excluding NYT columns on the basis that they are written by liberal firebrands.23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article about Amity Shlaes, not a garbage can for posting every piece of opposition research and blog rumor about her. The article thus requires neutral balance, which means that we don't just cite to your favorite liberals who have to make ad hominem attacks to defend their agenda. It's also a biography of a living person, which means the blog posts you keep trying to insert don't go in. THF (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph at issue is neither properly cited nor worded for this article in my opinion. Collect (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A statement of opinion like this doesn't help the discussion. What do you think is wrong with the citation and wording? How can they be improved? Or are you arguing, like THF, that, rather than improve our coverage of these points, we should not mention them? JQ (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

We should add a {{main}} template to the Forgotten Man controversy section. THF (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the only balancing material bout the Forgotten Man was deleted. "The International Herald Tribune review by David Leonhardt includes "In a unanimous ruling the court found the (chicken pricing) 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." " Fully referenced material which balances a POV setction ought to be replaced in the article. Collect (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Possible compromise

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)

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)

Bias

• 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)

What's not mentioned is FDR devalued the dollar. $20 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce of gold. It's easy to have 9 to 11 percent growth of GNP, high unemployment, and lots of government works projects when the government can create all the money in wants.

Also, the book is more about the effects of government policy on people and business at a personal level, and not a tome on economic theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.7.169 (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

71.12.223.111 is sadly simply correct, Peter Temin showed this in the 70s, all the wishful pc revisionism can' t change that. It is also "strange" that the newnewdealers completly ignore the stalinist or (even worse?) Ialian-fascist leanings of many of the chief administrators of the New Deal. Hitler's economic success with new deal type policies might also give pause for thought?--Radh (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on reliable sources

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)

Controversies Section

The controversies section should be expanded. Much of Amity Shlaes scholarly work has been repeatedly questioned for it's accuracy.

Her work has been questioned as: selectively reporting facts, ignoring inconvenient facts, and creating a revisionist mythology of verifiable history.

"Revisionists' blind view of New Deal." By Matthew Dallek http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6CF51F59-18FE-70B2-A858CD862CDC69EA

The key graph by historian Dallek's criticism of Shlaes writing is:

"Shlaes cited unemployment figures that excluded Americans who had New Deal-generated jobs, and she virtually ignored what Rauchway calls “the authoritative reference work Historical Statistics of the United States.” That reference book shows that during FDR’s first term, the real GDP grew by some 9 percent annually; and after the 1937-38 recession, the economy grew at an annual clip of 11 percent. By the fall of 1934, another New Deal historian, William E. Leuchtenburg, explains, “the ranks of the unemployed had been reduced by over 2 million and national income stood almost a quarter higher than in 1933."

Amity Shlaes historical scholarship and accounting methodology has been questioned by both credible historians as well as economics professors. There's a growing body of evidence that Amity Shlaes is a fiction writer pretending to write non-fiction to push a political agenda.

Below it's asked if George Will's encomium to Amity Shlaes should be included. The same George Will who has decided to question the science behind global climate change? George "doubts global science" Will is not in the same league as Paul "noble prize" Krugman. That creates a false equivalency that's a discredit to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither Krugman nor Wills are scientists. And neither has won a Nobel (not noble) Prize. And none of this has anything to do with whether one journalist's praise of another should be included in a Wikipedia article. 12.152.78.2 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/popular.html Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The numbers cited in this section are misleading: the slump was so great, production 60 p.c. of early 20s figures!, that the 1933 recovery at first glance of course looks enormous, but was not, also new recession in 37. The recession ended with WW2 only (and then left the much loved insustrial-military complex in its wake, compare US military spending pre and post WW2 and you will be shocked).--Radh (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One problem is with the word ordering and the tone of this section (which is meant for criticism). For instance, the positive reviews "raved", while the negative ones "accused." I suggest choosing less emotionally loaded terms and using the same subject-verb-object structure for all sentences. Another example is that the qualifications of "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history, Matthew Dallek" stands out, while the (unabashedly) conservative nature of the National Review is glossed over. We should be consistent—I suggest removing the entire phrase "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history" and allowing the citation or a wikipedia page link on the person allow the user to adopt an informed opinion. The sentence and paragraph structure is quite confusing as a whole, I wish it were more logically ordered—move the positive reviews to its own paragraph, and organize the criticisms by type and response, keep response length from being many times longer than the criticism (isn’t that what citation is for?). --tychay —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Unbalanced tag

Shlaes's book is widely praised (great reviews in the WSJ, NY Review of Books, Foreign Affairs, etc.), but somehow only the criticism from liberals concerned about the political ramifications of her work is in the article--and not even Shlaes's response rebutting the false claims of inaccuracy. THF (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That section should indeed include some more positive reviews, and rather than referring to it as a "controversy" it should simply refer to reaction to the book.

Really though the thing to do here is get the recently created article on the book into tip-top shape and then do a quick summary-style bit here while linking to that article.

I'm not sure THF that you read the NYRB review that closely (it's not free online so maybe you only heard it referenced). While the reviewer, economist and encyclopedist Benjamin M. Friedman, starts out complimenting the prose and some of the narratives which he says make for "genuinely delightful reading," in the end it's rather devastating (albeit in a very polite fashion as is common with NYRB reviews). Friedman notes that "several problems prevent Shlaes's argument from being fully credible" (which is quite harsh), that her "account of the depression experience seems unbalanced," and that she fails to prove key arguments. He clearly did not think much of the book in terms of its scholarship (actually I'm not sure he said anything positive about it in that respect).

And this is hardly surprising, since from what I can gather (I have not and will not read the book), serious students of the Depression seem to find the book rather flawed. Unreconstructed supply-siders (which Shlaes apparently is) and folks who hate the New Deal before they even pick up the book obviously love it, but based on what I've read I can't imagine historians of the New Deal giving it status among the canonical scholarly works about that era. If, as seems likely (though I don't have the time or inclination to determine this definitively), the reviews from those-in-the-know are more negative than positive (and I'm guessing more reviews will be coming in now that the book is getting serious play), then our article on the book should reflect that. NPOV obviously does not mean 50/50 good/bad, we need to reflect what the most reliable sources are saying about the book and there is some serious criticism here.

But, again, of course you are right that it should not include only negative reviews. I'm not interested in working on this anytime soon, but I fully support you or anyone else adding in more glowing accounts over at The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression and then adjusting the appropriate section of this article accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, exemplified, is hypocrisy. You say on one hand that you have not and will not read the book, due most likely due to your own desire to believe something, and then go on to say "folks who hate the New Deal before they even pick up the book obviously love it," referring to the book. This is what the left does. They decide who is the authority and if they disagree with you then they're suddenly no longer an authority. There are literally hundreds of economists who laud this book, but because you say ipse dixit that you "can't imagine historians of the New Deal giving it status among the canonical scholarly works about that era." Newsflash. Shaels IS a historian of the New Deal.

The piece de resistance is of course, after you recognize how ridiculous The Forgotten Man section of the article is, you go ahead and say, "well, I'm not gonna change it anyway." What a hypocrite. -heyzeusful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyzeusful (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No she's not a a "historian of the New Deal", she only has a BA in English, but as Bigtme pointed out crank libertarians such as yourself will praise her regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Was Amity Shlaes fired from the Financial Times?

Economist Brad DeLong pointed out that "Amity Shlaes was fired from the Financial Times for lying about the Bush administration's preparedness to deal with Hurricane Katrina." http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/jonathan-chait-on-new-deal-denialism.html

Since part of the article about Shlaes reads like a curriculum vitae, with prominent mention of her work at the Financial Times, her termination at the Financial Times for shoddy journalism should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blog libel from partisan sources doesn't get into BLPs. THF (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree to the above. While it would not be libelous to note that she stopped writing for the Financial Times shortly after [her articles on Katrina], it would probably violate NPV without a better citation. It’d probably be best if we could add a citation of which years she worked as a columnist for the Financial Times (note that FT’s search site only goes back to 2004) tychay —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

In order to say that she was 'fired', and that this was the reason, we'd need a reliable source for confirmation. Speculation in blogs doesn' cut it. Dlabtot (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A search on "Amity Shlaes" reveals the two self contradictory posts, as well as letters to the editor complaining about her articles, and then nothing from FT, so the statement by Crooked Timber, "A search by date suggests that Shlaes produced one more column (which tried to blame the Katrina shambles on the Evils of Federalism, directly contradicting what she had said the previous week), a piece for the wealth section, and a book review over the next couple of weeks, and was then gone forever" is factually correct. Since those rather egregious displays of hackery, she has not graced the pages of FT.

As to listing Delong and Yglesias as, "Just bloggers," while it might be true for the former, it is not true for the latter. Mr. Delong, notwithstanding his government experience, is just a professor blogging. Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, has been employed as a writer by a number of journals, and as such, this is a statement by someone in the field.

So we KNOW that she published these articles, and that she was excoriated in the letters page, and that she was never published by FT again, and we KNOW that a professional in the punditry industry has explicitly stated that he was fired.

I would also note that repeating Mr. Yglesias's statement is NOT libelous, because Ms. Shlaes is a public figure, and by publishing an explicit statement of someone in the business, you are not exhibiting either "malice" or a "reckless disregard for the truth."

Is the statement that, with in the space of N weeks, Amity Shlaes published two contradictory articles on the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina (true from the search of the archives), and thereafter, her relationship with the FT ended (also true from the archives), and a number of people (links to CT, Yglesias, Delong) have suggested that she was terminated.[User:msaroff|msaroff]] (talk) 4:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:V requires the statement to be from a reliable source. What is given above is WP:SYNTH and is contrary to WP policy. As for WP:BLP it requires poorly sourced contentious claims to be immediately removed from any article. Collect (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty rare that I agree with Collect but he is right on the mark here. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that it's clear that she was fired, but not documented, so I have added a timeline of her separation from FT to the article, basically that she published an article saying "Boosh good, federalism not issue, yaaaah!" followed by an article saying, "Boosh good, federalism a problem, yaaaaah!!!", followed by a book review, and that she has published nothing since. This is accurate, and the FT archives confirm this, and the reader is left to determine who left whom (or is it whom left who?). No mention of what was obviously a termination. Needless to say, I have been somewhat more formal in the article. msaroff (talk) 8:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP -- concatenating to show a timeline is WP:SYNTH unless you have a reliable source for the claim about the timeline. Sorry -- WP:BLP standards are a lot stricter than they were a year ago. Collect (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How many times do you need to have this explained to you? If you can't find a source for it you can't put it in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't get this one: I cleaned up the links (some were direct links, and some were direct references, and noted that her last articles at FT were published in September, 2005. That all stayed, but the the link which shows her articles on FT was removed. There is no statement of firing. There is no reference to the controversy as to her 2nd and 3rd to last articles at FT, nor any to the circumstances under which she left, just an end date. The end date remains, but the link which provides a citation for the end date is removed? Please explain how the addition of, "until September, 2005," to describe her the dates of her tenure at FT is acceptable, but the link which shows that her last article was published on September 23, 2005 is somehow not acceptable? Mongo confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you can't publish your own original research - in this case a search of the archives of ft - on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you are telling me that that a link showing an end date is unacceptable original research? By this standard, if there were a link from her official biography, and it said, "A columnist for the Financial Times from XXXX 2000 through September 2005," this would be unacceptable because I looked it up? The statement on original research is that, "not already published by reliable sources," but the archives of the Financial Times is a "publication by a reliable source." By your, honestly, quite twisted, definition of original research, linking to the press release of the firing of Zach Kouwe by Dealbreaker.com (JFGI) would be unacceptable because it's original research, so one would have to link to Felix Salmon's article about the firing. (And no, I'm not editing the Kouwe entry, because it appears that basic documentation appears to be against Wikipedia rules now). I could understand if I contacted an editor at FT personally, but I am citing a publication of the FT as to the articles that they published by her to determine the date of the last article. To quote the standard, the link is, "Published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

Your argument appears to me to be a completely nonsensical reading of the standard.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in this for other articles as well. Are you allowed to provide links to columns and pieces written by the subject of an article, or not? I had thought you were; look at Wikipedia's Westbrook Pegler article. It has links to several articles written by Pegler that add greatly to understanding the subject. Why can there not be links to pieces by Amity Shlaes in the Amity Shlaes article? 12.152.78.2 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Honors and Awards

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)Nancy R.

Deleting Paragraph re Leonhardt Review

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)

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)

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)

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)

Better Link for citation #20

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)Nat

Education?

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)

See "Academic qualifications?" section at the top of this talk page.98.110.35.22 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Poopie Jefferson

Aiming for a balanced presentation of Furchtgott-Roth article

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)

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)

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)

==Some discussion of her family background from a Booknotes with Brian Lamb interview, if anyone cares to make this article more robust.74.193.221.158 (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Academic Qualifications?

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)

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)Pat Pending

Chomsky has a Ph.D. — goethean 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

POV other tags

{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)

• Nobody responded, so I removed all the above tags. 10stone5 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

POV tag, February 2015

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)

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)

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)

Libertarian or classical liberal?

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:

• Barro, Josh (September 19, 2014). "The New Conservative Love Affair With Canada". The New York Times.

"Classical liberal" is being supported by these sources:

• "A Classical Liberal View of the Great Depression". The Liberty21 Institute. The Liberty21 Institute. Retrieved 24 February 2015. This is a self-published blog and therefore not a reliable source.
• "About Amity Shlaes". AmityShlaes.com. Amity Shlaes. Retrieved 24 February 2015.. 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)

The Liberty21 source was replaced with this one:

• "Amity Shlae's New History of the Great Depression". National Review. National Review Online. Retrieved 24 February 2015. This is an interview of Amity Shlaes in which she calls herself a "liberal". This is not reliable.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bestsellers

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)

King's College

Sramos92, 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)